Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Solid Waste to Energy Feasibility Study - Village of Greenport
E r • SOLID WASTE -TO -ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR VILLAGE OF GREENPORT 011 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PREPARER: Peconic Associates, Inc. and Gannett Fleming One Bootleg Alley Greenport, New York 11944 (516) 477-0030 DATE OF PREPARATION: May 1985 E • 0 PREPARED BY: Peconic Associates, Inc. One Bootleg Alley Greenport, L. I. New York - 11944 (516) 477-0038 and Gannett Fleming through its affiliate Corddry Carpenter Dietz and Zack Gramercy Park Building Suite 2005 257 Park Avenue South New York New York - 10010 (212) 254-2221 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS • 0 rxm ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER ONE - MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION 1.1 Summary and Conclusions 1 - 1 1.2 Sources of Solid Waste 1 - 2 1.3 Quality of Solid Waste 1 - 4 1.4 Solid Waste Variability 1 - 5 1.5 Landfill Gas 1 - 7 1.6 Redistributed Solid Waste Load 1 - 8 1.7 Additional Fuel Sources 1 - 18 1.8 Projected Population 1 - 11 1.9 Projected Solid Waste 1 - 12 CHAPTER TWO - SOLID WASTE -TO -ENERGY TECHNOLOGY 2.1 Summary and Conclusions 2 - 1 2.2 The Technology - How It Works 2 - 2 2.3 Development and Operation - Case Studies 2 - 13 CHAPTER THREE - ECONOMICS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - TO -ENERGY PLANTS 3.1 Summary and Conclusions 3 - 1 3.2 Landfilling Costs 3 - 2 3.3 Incineration Costs 3 - 3 3.4 Homeowner Costs 3 - 11 E TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER FOUR - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS OF AVE • MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE -TO -ENERGY PLANTS 4.1 Summary and Conclusions 4 - 1 4.2 Air Pollutants from M.S.W. Plants and Methods of Control 4 - 4 4.3 Incinerator Residue (Ash) from Modular Incinerator Units 4 - 8 4.4 Comparisons and Standards for Pollution Control 4 - lA 4.5 Other Environmental and Social Impacts of Municipal Solid Waste -To -Energy Plants 4 - 13 4.6 Landfill Pollution 4 - 15 • CHAPTER FIVE - ANALYSIS OF UTILIZING SOLID WASTE AS A SOURCE OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY FOR VILLAGE OF GREENPORT 5.1 Summary and Conclusions 5 - 1 5.2 Projected Village Power Demands 5 - 1 5.3 Calculated M.S.W. Plant Power Production 5 - 4 5.4 Plant Location 5 - 5 5.5 Economics of Use of M.S.W. Plant Produced Electricity 5 - 5 5.6 Sale of M.S.W. Plant Produced Electricity 5 - 7 APPENDIX A - AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM MSW PLANTS AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES A - 1 • • • LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1.1 Present Available '1011d Waste Useable As A Fuel 1 - 6 1.2 Redistributed Present Available Fuel 1 - 9 1.3 Projected Available Fuel Year 2005 1 - 15 2.1 Percent of Municipal Solid Waste Used in Waste -To -Energy Facilities 2 - 3 2.2 Typical Solid Waste -To -Energy Module 2 - 5 2.3 Cross -Section of a Typical Solid Waste - To -Energy Module 2 - 6 2.4 Example of Another Modular Incinerator 2 - a 2.5 View of a Typical Plant 2 - 9 3.1 Projected Landfill Costs - Town.of Southold 3 - 4 3.2 Disposal Costs Landfill vs. Incineration Costs 3 - 10 LIST OF TABLES 4.4 Comparisons between Emissions from Residences TABLE 4 PAGE 1.1 Estimated Solid Waste Generation 1 - 3 1.2 Present Solid Waste 1 - 4 1.3 Population - Present and Projected Greenport/Southold/Shelter Island 1 - 13 1.4 Summary of Population Increases Greenport/Southold/Shelter Island 1 - 14 3.1 Projected Project Costs for a Solid • Waste -To -Energy Pland 3 - 5 3.2 Anticipated Project Funding for a Solid Waste -To -Energy Plant 3 - 9 3.3 Summary of Municipal Solid Waste Contributions 3 - 12 3.4 Summary of Homeowner Costs of Solid Waste Disposal 3 - 13 4.1 Projected Emission of Air Pollutants from a Modular Incinerator Facility Employing Combustion Modification and Pollution Control Equipment 4 - 2 4.2 EP Toxicity Test kesults Observed Concentrations (ppm) 4 - 9 4.3 Comparisons of Standards for Pollution Control 4 - 10 4.4 Comparisons between Emissions from Residences and a 100 Ton Per Day M.S.W. Plant 4 - 12 4.5 Groundwater Monitoring Data, Cutchogue Landfill, Town of Southold 4 - 17 5.1 Village of Greenport Electric Power Projections 5 - 3 5.2 Average M.S.W. Power Production with Mass Balance 1965 - 2005 5 - 4 5.3 Projected Cross Income Per Year for Sale of • M.S.W. Plant Produced Electricity 5 - 8 • ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We wish to thank the following who provided input in the preparation of this Study: Village of Greenport - Mayor George Hubbard Trustee William Lieblein Trustee David Kapell Trustee Gail Horton Trustee Jean Cooper Utilities Superintendent James I. Monsell William Gillooly Town of Southold - Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Southold Town Board Members: Jean W. Cochran James A. Schondebare Paul Stoutenburg Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. Raymond W. Edwards Raymond Dean Rodney Douglas New York State Department of Environmental Conservation: Harold Berger Ted Sanford Paul Roth Hans H. Dirzuweit S. Akram Husain Various Manufacturer's Representatives. U EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The present solid waste generated by the Town of Southold, Village of Greenport, and Shelter Island will supply approximately 95% of the fuel requirements for a 100 Ton per day Waste -To -Energy facility. Because of the seasonal variation of the waste generated, redistribution of the waste and the use of landfill methane will be required to meet the 95% level of fuel requirements. Approximately 34,000 Tons of solid waste are generated per • year, of which approximately 32,000 Tons are burnable. The use of the methane gas from the landfill is considered a significant fuel source for the solid waste -to -energy plant. It is equivalent to approximately 2,300 Tons per year of solid waste. Source separation and storage of newspaper is another method that can be considered for redistribution of total volume solid waste. A Ton of newspaper, for example, can generate $100.00 in income in a waste -to -energy plant, it has only a very small value if it is sold as a recycle product. 1 • U The solid to waste energy technology explored in this study was limited to the "modular" type. These types of units are the ones that are best suited for a plant of this size, they also have the best record of control of pollutants to the atmosphere. A typical modular waste to energy plant consists of one or more incinerators, boilers, steam turbine, and electric generating unit. Water requirements for condensing and ash quenching is limited to approximately two gallons per minute and is available from on-site sources. The burning of solid waste reduces its volume approximately 90% and thereby tripling the life of the existing landfill. There is the possibility that ash from the incineration process can be used as a cover on the existing landfill, reducing the percolation of rainfall, improving the quality of the leachate and increase the ability to contain landfill methane gas generated. The economic investigation of the practicality of a solid waste -to -energy facility for Southold Town and Greenport resulted in the conclusion that it is economically feasible. The estimated cost of such a plant is approximately ten million dollars. Ideally, the funds would come from a combination of grants from New York State D.E.C., New York State E.R.D.A., private investors, low interest loans, and Industrial Development Agency bonds. 2 • If aid for the project is available at the 50% level, then the tipping fees would be approximately the same as the current operating costs at the Cutchogue landfill. If there was no financial aid for the project, it is calculated that the increased costs per homeowner would be approximately $45.00 per year. If there were no project at all and the solid waste was trucked to another location, such as Riverhead, with the ashes returned to Cutchogue, the additional cost per home owner is estimated to be approximately $315.00 per year. The cost of operating the present landfill is expected to increase very little over the next five years, until 1990, when the costs would change from approximately $14.00 per Ton to $21.70 per Ton, primarily because of the requirements to line the landfill. A 100 Ton per day solid waste -to -energy plant, constructed with aid, would have an operating cost of $34.00 per Ton. Project income would be $13.50 for tipping fees and $20.20 from the sale of electricity. The economic comparison between the operation of a landfill and the operation of a solid waste -to -energy plant over the next fifteen years are significant. A plant built with 50; aid would result in a savings of over six million dollars in fifteen years as compared to operation of the landfill, primarily because of the income from the sale of electricity. 3 • • • The handling and processing of people generated solid waste has potentially adverse environmental impacts. A landfill operation adversely impacts groundwater quality, is a dust and odor generating operation and is the primary basis that the State has ruled that landfills in potable water aquifer areas should be closed by 1990. The alternative technology, municipal solid waste -to -energy plants, emit a wide range of coumpounds classified as air pollutants. However, the next pollution effect of a landfill is much greater. If people are allowed to continue to exist at their present life-style, which includes generation of solid waste, then we all have to realize that processing and disposal of such a waste represents some trade-offs. The conclusion of this study is that modular incinerator technology, coupled with commercially available air pollution control equipment, can reduce these air emissions to very low levels. This processing equipment includes: combustion modifications; flue gas scrubbing systems; and fabric filter systems (bag houses). In addition, the maintenance of furnace combustion temperatures at 1800° F. with a 1 second resident time has been proven to reduce organic and heavy emissions by a factor of 99%. .9 • • • Other environmental improvements from a solid waste plant as compared to landfill include physical and site appearance, odor control, reduction of site dust, elimination of landfill fires, elimination of papers and materials blowing through the area, and greater public health and safety. The operation of a 100 Ton per day municipal solid waste incinerator plant will increase the total pounds of pollutants discharged to the atmosphere per year by approximately 15% over that now emitted from oil fired residential homes. In comparison the pollution level of landfill leachate is approximately 15 times that of raw sewage. A 100 Ton per day municipal solid waste -to -energy plant can generate 1.8 to 2.0 megawatts of electricity. As the Village of Greenport's base load ranges from 2 to 3 megawatts, a 100 Ton per day solid waste -to -energy plant could provide a majority of the Village of Greenport's electrical base load. The potential income received from sale of MSW produced electrical energy ranges from six hundred and fifty thousand dollars per year at six cents per K.W. and a production of 1800 K.W. to over two million dollars per year with a voided rate of twelve cents a K.W. 5 • In summary, this study has concluded that a 100 Ton per day municipal solid waste plant may be an economical viable, environmentally sound decision for the processing of solid wastes from Southold Town and the Village of Greenport. Based on the conclusions from this study, it is recommended that the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport proceed to the next steps to build such a plant, which includes the following actions: R 1. Concur that the project is feasible. 2. Request funding from New York State D.E.C. and explore funding with New York State E.R.D.A. • 3. Retain professionals to: (a) Assist the Town and Village in becoming familiar with the available technology by interviewing vendors and visiting actual operating facilities. (b) Assist in the formation and implementation of solid waste districts to control solid waste disposal. (c) Obtain more detailed information on: 1. Fuel Quality and Quantity - o Municipal Solid Waste - Weights received on daily basis and quality variations. o Brush Utilization - Quantity received on daily basis, cost of chipping, drying and handling for use as a fuel. R • • • o Wood Waste - Availability and cost of waste from manufacturers in Long Island area. o Methane Recovery - Site investigation and testing to determine quality and quantity available. o Paper Utilization - Type and availability on daily basis, cost of storage and handling. Firm quantities of fuel are needed for project financing and for contracts with a design/build/operate vendor. 2. Specific Technology and Costs - o If requested, investigate other related technologies such as the waste distillator. o Preparation of preliminary plans with conceptual designs, site layout, and outline specifications. o Detailed cost analysis for construction and operation. o Sensitivity cost analysis for effect of tax law, interest rates, fuel costs and electric rates on project financial feasibility. o Determine technology approach to maximize project income including but not limited to: - Use of methane gas in internal combustion engine generator. 7 • - Use of heat recovery, controls, insulation, etc. on incineration process to reduce heat loss and maximize electric output. - Use of low energy consuming air pollution control devices and low energy consuming process components to reduce in plant energy consumption and increase net electricity output. o Determine implementation approach: - by Town and/or Village for ownership and/or operation with training by • experienced operating consultant; or - private vendor ownership and operation; or - public ownership and private ownership; or other combinations of approaches. 3. Environmental Requirements and Associated Costs: o Ash hancling and disposal including landfill. o Air Pollution Control modeling and assessment. o Water supply and treatment. o Environmental Assessment Statement. o Permits. • 7 • (d) Prepare an RFP to vendors for a solid waste to energy project and to assist in the evaluation and selection of a vendor. (e) Prepare required environmental and engineering studies. (f) Negotiate electric sale rates and interconnection requirements. (g) Oversee the design and implementation of the project. A suggested schedule for implementation of the above actions is as follows: Complete By • 1. Concur Project if Feasible, and 2. Request for Funding - 1 Month August 1985 3. Retain professionals for: a. Familiarity with facilities - 1 Month September 1985 b. Solid Waste District Formation - 3 Months December 1985 C. Obtaining more detailed information - 1. Fuel Quality/Quantity; 2. Specific Technology & Costs; 3. Environmental Requirements and Costs. 6 to 9 Months March 1986 d. Prepare Vendor R.F.P.'s - 2 Months May 1986 e. Prepare Environmental and Engineering Studies - 1 Year August 1986 • f. Negotiate electric sale - 6 Months May 1986 g. Oversee design and Implementation - 2 Years August 1988 9 • INTRODUCTION This study was accomplished in accordance with an Agreement between New York State Department of State, 162 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York and the Village of Greenport, 236 Third Street, Greenport, New York and the Town of Southold, Main Road, Southold, New York, and further in accordance with New York State Department of State Coastal Energy Impact Program Agreement, Federal Grant No. - NA-83-AA-D-CZ035. As a guide to the preparation of this feasibility study a work program outline was developed which includes the • following: The Village of Greenport, pursuant to a purchase agreement scheduled to expire in 1985, purchases electricity from the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY). I,n turn, the purchased electricity is distributed by the Greenport Municipal Power Company. The Company maintains its deisel- fueled generating capacity as reserve. Concern exists, on the part of the Village, that PASNY may not renew the Village's Purchase Agreement in 1985 and that the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) may not continue to allow the Village "in feeding" right across their system. A • possibility also exists that with a renegotiated purchase 1 • agreement substantial increases in cost may result. As a result, it is imperative that the Village investigate and conduct a feasibility analysis of alternative options for meeting the Village's electric needs, including analysis of the burning of solid waste generated by the Village of Greenport and Town of Southold. The study will provide the Village of Greenport information which identifies the advantages and disadvantages of the several alternative options available for meeting the Village's need for electricity. • ACTIVITY I Investigate alternative options for meeting the Village of Greenport's need for electricity. ACTIVITY -2 Based upon information provided in Activity 1, analyze the constraints and impacts identified for each alternative option and determine those options most feasible for further consideration by the Village. ACTIVITY 3 Conduct a comparative cost analysis of generating electricity from the burning of solid waste with other available options • identified in Activity 2. 2 • ACTIVITY 4 Analyze the municipal solid waste generated by the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold to determine its quality and quantity from available data. ACTIVITY 5 Review and analyze existing technology for using solid waste burning to generate electricity including that used at Auburn, Maine and Willamantic, Connecticut. ACTIVITY 6 Study the costs attendant to producing power from the burning • of solid wastes. • ACTIVITY 7 Identify the impacts that could result from generating electricity from the burning of solid wastes. ACTIVITY 8 Prepare a final report which summarizes the findings and conclusions of Activities 1 through 7 and discusses alternative options to generate electricity for the Village, the most feasible options, the availability of solid wastes to fuel an electrical generating facility, the alternative 3 • methods, including a preferred method, of burning solid wastes to produce electricity, and the costs and impacts that would likely occur should electrical generation from the burning of solid wastes be put into effect. All the activities were addressed in the preparation of this report. For clarity, the order was rearranged somewhat, as listed in the report's table of contents. The investigation of Solid -Waste -To -Energy technology was generally limited to proven modular systems of the type that are already installed for burning municipal solid waste at • various localities, and have a satisfactory operating record for at least five (5) years for that particular type of equipment. 0 4 • CHAPTER ONE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION 1.1 Summary and Conclusions: The municipal solid waste generated in this area appears to be sufficient to support a solid waste -to -energy facility of approximately one hundred tons per day capacity. Sources of fuel for this facility consist of municipal solid waste from Southold. Greenport, and Shelter Island, paper, brush, and methane gas from the existing landfill. At present generation rates, these combined fuels will supply 95% of • the fuel requirements for a solid waste -to -energy facility, • based on present waste loads. However, due to the variability of the waste load received at the landfill during different times of the year, some of the fuel in the form of paper, brush, and methane gas must be stored for off -seasonal use. This off -seasonal period occurs from approximately mid-October to mid-February. Waste generation during the summer months is more than adequate to meet peak burning requirements. 1 - 1 • • Future waste generation in this area is more than needed to supply the facility on a 100$ basis. In fact, during the summer months municipal solid waste will have to be by- passed or baled. If the waste is by-passed.some small amount of landfill space must be made available during this period. If the material is baled it is entirely possible to store the municipal solid waste and reuse the waste during the low waste generation periods. 1.2 Sources of Solid Waste: During the past year the Town of Southold has recorded the Quantity of solid waste entering the landfill at Cutchogue on a daily basis. The enclosed Table 1.1 gives the estimated solid waste generation on a tons per day basis. Municipal solid waste consists of the material brought in by both commercial carters and private vehicles. Approximately 80% of the municipal solid waste comes from commercial carters. Approximately 75% of the total solid waste received at the landfill is municipal solid waste. 1 - 2 • TABLE 1.1 ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE GENERATION TONS PER DAY COMMERCIAL PRIVATE PAPER MONTH CARTERS VEHICLES PRODUCTS METAL BRUSH TOTAL JANUARY 39 9 .7 .7 6 55.4 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FEBRUARY 48 10 .8 .8 5 56.6 ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARCH 42 10 .8 .8 8 61.6 ----------------------------------------------------------------- APRIL 50 14 .9 .8 40 105.7 ----------------------------------------------------------------- MAY 60 12 1.1 1.0 30 104.1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUNE 78 15 1.5 1.2 26 121.7 JULY ------------------------------------------------- 80 17 1.5 1.2 26 125.7 ----------------------------------------------------------------- AUGUST 78 15 1.5 1.2 26 121.7 ----------------------------------------------------------------- SEPTEMBER 50 14 .8 .8 20 85.6 ----------------------------------------------------------------- OCTOBER 48 12 1.0 .8 30 91.8 ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOVEMBER 42 10 .8 .7 8 61.5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- DECEMBER 38 9 .7 .7 6 54.4 i - 3 0 1.3 Quality Of Solid Waste: Present solid waste received at the Cutchogue landfill can be classified into two groups - burnable solid waste and total solid waste. The quantities are further broken down in Table 1.2. The 30,200 tons per year of burnable waste represents 83% of the required capacity of a 100 ton per day solid waste -to -energy facility. Additional solid, waste available from the Town of Shelter Island would bring the total tons per year to 32,600. This figure represents 89% of total capacity. However, the variability of the quantity of waste received at the landfill during different portions of the year must be considered. TABLE 1.2 PRESENT SOLID WASTE ITEM AMOUNT AVAILABLE A. Southold (including Greenport) Tons Per Year (TPY) Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Paper Brush Metal • B. Shelter Island - MSW Total Total 1 - 4 Burnable Total 24,200 24,200 400 400 5,600 7,100 --- 300 30,200 32,000 2,400 2,400 32,600 34,400 • 9 1.4 Solid Waste variability: Solid waste received at the Cutchogue landfill varies significantly in both quality and quantity on a seasonal basis. During the months of May through September the quantity of municipal solid waste increases significantly due to the large increase in seasonal population. Beginning in mid-March and continuing through the end of September the quantity of brush received at the landfill also increases. In fact, the quantity of brush varies significantly from an average of 6 tons per day to a peak of well over 110 tons per day. Figure 1.1 illustrates this variability in the waste load. Also shown on the Figure is the required fuel for a 100 ton per day facility and the areas where fuel deficits occur. one of the sources of additional fuel to satisfy this fuel deficit is methane gas, which comes from the decomposing solid waste at the existing landfill. 1 - 5 FIGURE 1.1 PRESENT AVAILABLE SOLID WASTE USEABLE AS FUEL 5000 -4 PAPER+BRUSH+METHANE Z 4000 m m REQUIRD FUEL AT 100 TPD O (FUEL DEFICIT) ,. ; ...-1- Z/ Z _ - a _ . r 2000 y.00 1000 H Ze EXCESS FUEL _ DEFICIT) MUNICIPAL MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY MONTHS AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC.I 1.5 Landfill Gas: Decomposition of the municipal solid waste at the existing landfill yields landfill gas. Tests on the gas by Southold Town personnel and New York State D.E.C. reveal methane levels of approximately 25 - 50$. This methane gas can be burned in a solid waste facility. It can be used as a supplemental fuel during periods of low solid waste generation. It can also be used to add heat to the burning process when needed. This is especially helpful during times when "wet" solid waste is brought into the • facility. Another use of the methane is to add additional heat to incinerate pollutants in the secondary chamber of the incinerator. Based on some initial calculations and very preliminary testing, we estimate the amount of methane available in the landfill is equivalent to approximately 2,300 Tons per year of solid waste. If this methane is added to the other available solid waste quantities, the total available solid waste at present will be 34,900 Tons per year. This figure represents 95% of the total required capacity of a 100 Ton per day solid waste -to -energy facility. However, to • maximize the efficiency and the utilization of the solid waste facility, we must redistribute some of the solid waste load. 1 - 7 • 1.6 Redistributed Solid Waste Load: Brush, paper, and methane can all be stored to some extent and used during periods of low solid waste generation. Figure 1.2 shows the effect of redistributing the presently available solid waste. By redistributing the solid waste electricity can be generated from the solid waste at an availability of between 85% and 95% from the months of September through the end of March. During this period of reduced availability spring and fall maintenance can be performed to insure continued operational reliability during the later summer months. From the months of April through • the end of August peak generating capacity can be maintained between 95% and 100% of availability. This will insure that • the most electricity is generated from the solid waste when there is the most need for that electricity. Realistically this figure illustrates just about a maximum amount of solid waste that a hundred ton per day facility can utilize. However, if the quantity of methane, brush, or paper decreases significantly, then additional sources of fuel may be needed to meet the current burning requirements. 1 - 8 • • 0 $000 4000 O 2 3000 m O 2000 S FIGURE 1.2 REDISTRIBUTED PRESENT AVAILABLE FUEL (SHOWN IN SHADED AREA) REDUCED AVAILIBILITY FOR SPRING& FALL MAINTENANCE REQUIRED FUEL AT 100 TPD EXCESS MSW AVG. 50/6 DEFICIT] 85% 88% IA ed Paper+Brush; >tored Paper+Brush+Methanet�iar aAerx rsz +Methane Vii: MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE MONTHS -I- JULY AUCs SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. I L • 0 1.7 Additional Fuel Sources: A number of different kinds of fuel sources can be made available if needed. Some possibilities included: 1. Fast growing hardwood. 2. Waste wood from Long Island and New York City. 3. Cord wood from upstate New York or New England. 4. Barged wood and/or wood chips from New England. 5. Other wastes or fuel such as waste oil or fuel oil. Obviously, some of these optional fuels are more costly and more or less practical than others. Fast growing hardwoods are presently being planted by Reynolds Metals on 600 acres of land in upstate New York. That tree farm will be used as a source of fuel when needed or when the economics of purchasing other fuels changes. Expected production varies from 2 to 15 tons of fuel per acre per year, with 5 acres per year A "good" number. At this rate, approximately 200 acres of land would have to be planted to yield enought fast growing hardwood to cover a six month 5% fuel deficit. Waste wood is also available from manufacturers in the Long Island and New York City area. Proctor & Gamble on Staten Island is currently receiving the bulk of available waste wood in the New York City area at an estimated income to 1 - 10 them of $10.00 per ton. A similar program could be started for woodworking shops in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Cord wood is presently available from New York State and New England. Each truckload of cord wood is approximately 22 Tons. Seven truckloads would be required on a monthly basis to cover a 5% fuel deficit. However, the delivered cost to Long Island is approximately $840.00 to $900.00 per truckload. This is approximately $38.00 to $41.00 per ton. Other sources of fuels are also available. These include barged wood and wood chips from New England, other wastes • such as waste oil, or fuel oil. However, the need for such additional fuel sources is only short term because solid waste generation is expected to increase as population in the area increases. 1.8 Projected Population: Because most solid waste projects are evaluated on a period of twenty years or longer, it was necessary to obtain projected populations for the Greenport, Southold, Shelter Island area. Existing and projected population figures were obtained for principal years from the Long Island Regional • Planning Board. This included both year-round and seasonal population figures where available. These numbers were then • projected on a linear basis to the year 2885. Table 1.3 shows the results of these projections. The Planning Board also indicated that as the area increases in population, the types of population will also change somewhat. Year-round population is expected to increase at a slightly higher pace since some seasonal occupants will remain in their homes on a year-round basis. However, the seasonal population will still remain a significant factor on the eastern end of Long Island for many years to come. The projected percentage increases in populations are shown on Table 1.4. Obviously, these increases in population will • effect the quality and quantity of solid waste generated over the next 28 years. 1.9 Projected Solid Waste: In projecting the amount of solid waste generated over the next 28 years, it was assumed that no change in per capita generation of solid waste would occur. That is, the quantity of solid waste generated is due only to the increase in population, and not to the increase in the amount of solid waste generated by each person. Figure 1.3 shows the projected available fuel in the year 2885. Fuel deficits at • that time are much smaller than at present, but still exist if the solid waste is not redistributed. The excess 1 - 12 Table 1.3 Population - Present $ Projected Greenport / Southold / Shelter Island 1980(1) Municipality Yr.Round Yr.Roun Town of Southold(2) 16,899 17,549 Village of Greenport 2,273 2,398 Town of Shelter Island 2,071 2,219 21,243 22,166 i r vw Povulatic 1984 (1 ) Seasonal Total (3) 20,017 37,566 1,231 3,629 3,903 6,122 r 2000(l) Yr.Round 22,375 2,625 3,000 25,151 47,317128,000 Yr.Round Seasonal Tota] (3) 23,560 23,000 46,56( (5) 2,695 1,350 4,04! (6) 3,250 5,720 8,97( (7) 29,505 30,070 59,57! • Tr.Kouna 27,105 2,895 4,000 34,000 Notes (1) Figures supplied by Long Island Regional Planning Board. (2) Excluding Village of Greenport. (3) Memorial Day to Labor Day peak period with I month build-up period before and after peak pd. (4) Based on straight line interpolation from year 2000 to yr. 2020. (5) Minus 3000 pop. for conversion of seasonal to year-round use. (6) Based on 1984 to 2005 yr. round growth rate times 1984 seasonal population. (7) Based on 1.76 times year round population. Same ratio as present. 0 • U Table 1.4 Summary of Population Increases Greenport / Southold / Shelter Island 1980tol984 Period Population Percent Increase Increase Aug.Annual Total Year -Round 923 1.4%/yr. Seasonal (1) - - Total 923 1.4%/yr. Note: (1) Data unavailable. 5.4% 1984 to 2005 Period Population Percent Increase Increase Au .Annual Total 7,339 1.6% yr. 33.1% 4,919 0.9%/yr. 19.S% 12,258 1.2%/yr. 25.9% • FEO PAPER+BRUSH+METHANE FIGURE 1.3 PROJECTED AVAILABLE FUEL YEAR 2005 _� 4000" O - Y Cn REQUIRED FUEL AT 100 TPD 3000 m FUEL DEFICIT i � • is 1.000 S /MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) loo ,FUEL DEFICIT JAN. FEB. MAR. APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. Nov DEC.1 • municipal solid waste from May through August becomes a much more significant factor. One way of reducing the impact of this excess M.S.W. on landfill disposal costs is to institute a mandatory newspaper recycling program. Separation of newspapers from the waste load will reduce peak municipal solid waste generation rates. This newspaper can be stored and used a fuel for the fuel deficit periods. Interestingly enough, each ton of newspaper is capable of generating $100.80 in income when it is burned in a municipal solid waste -to -energy facility. Obviously its' value is higher as a fuel than as a recycled • material. s Another way of reducing the impact of the excess M.S.W. is to bale the waste during the summer months. The baled waste could then remain buried or could be shredded and used in the winter months. While this type of operation is being considered in Europe its feasibility here would have to be investigated further when and if needed. 1 - 16 i A third method of reducing the impact of excess M.S.W. is to expand the incinerator capacity and accept additional solid waste. This has the advantage of reducing the cost per Ton of incineration of solid waste since very little additional staffing would be needed. An added advantage is the increase in income due to greater electrical generation. Possible additional sources of solid wastes are from: o Area development at a greater rate than presently projected. Population increases would add additional solid waste. o Other areas - either East Hampton's solid waste or • the eastern part of Riverhead's solid waste could be transported to the site. East Hampton would probably have to construct a solid waste transfer facility to transport the solid waste cost effectively. Provisions could be made in the design of the proposed facility to accommodate these possible wastes by addition of another module. CA 1 - 17 0 CHAPTER TWO SOLID WASTE -TO -ENERGY TECHNOLOGY 2.1 Summary and Conclusions: The disposal of solid waste and the generation of electricity in the Greenport. Southold, and Shelter Island area is best suited to the modular type of incineration technology. A facility of approximately 100 Tons per day capacity will have the ability to burn solid waste, produce electricity for in - plant use and for sale, and generate hot water or steam. This hot water or steam could be sold to potential industries • which may locate on land immediately adjacent to the Cutchogue landfill site. The availability of low cost energy n U is one way of attracting industry and jobs into this area. Another benefit of burning solid waste is the increased life expectancy of the existing landfill. The projected 90% reduction in the volume of solid waste will result in more than tripling the life of the existing landfill from five years to over fifteen years. Additionally, landfill ash provides a dense cover on the landfill. This dense cover prevents, or reduces, the quantity of rainfall entering the landfill and the subsequent quantity of leachate generated by 2 - 1 rainwater passing down through the landfill. A dense landfill cover will also increase the ability to trap landfill methane gas for its collection and use in the modular incinerator. 2.2 The Technology - How It Works: There are basically two commonly used technologies to incinerate solid waste and generate energy in the form of steam, hot water and/or electricity. The waterwall technology is commonly found in larger solid waste -to -energy facilities. This technology is most commonly found • throughout Europe and in Japan, where approximately 70$ to 75$ of all municipal solid waste is processed in these types • of facilities. By comparison only about 5% of the municipal solid waste in the United States is processed in waste -to - energy facilities (see Figure 2.1). Generally, the most economical sizes of water wall incinerators are in the range of 1,606 Tons per day and up. By contrast, modular incinerators are generally suited for waste loads of less than 560 Tons per day. In modular technology the solid waste incineration process is broken into a group of units, or modules, each of a certain size. 2 - 2 171 • FIGURE 2.1 PERCENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE USED IN WASTE -TO -ENERGY FACILITIES (FROM WESTINGHOUSE- WASTE -TO -ENERGY DIVISION) 2-3 • For example, in the proposed project the modules would each be sized for 50 Tons per day. There would be 2 of these 50 Ton per day modules which would make up the proposed 100 Ton per day facility. Each of these units would be separate from the other in both the burning process and the ash handling systems. This modular concept then allows the independent operation of each module. This, in turn, provides flexibility to use one or two units, depending on the waste load, and it avoids having to shut down the entire plant if something should happen to one of the modules. An example of a typical solid waste -to -energy module is shown in Figure 2.2 and 2.3. In this process, the solid waste is pushed by a bobcat -sized payloader into a charging hopper. A ram in the hopper then pushes the solid waste into the combustion chamber. A series of additional rams located at the bottom of the combustion chamber pushes the solid waste along the bottom of the chamber where it is destructed and the remaining residue ending up in the ash pit. Gases from the combustion process rise into a secondary chamber located immediately above the primary combustion chamber. At that point additional air and methane gas or some other fuel can is be added to the gases to complete the combustion process and/or control pollutants, although this is not usually 2 - 4 0 0 FIGURE 2.2 1. Skid Steer Loader 5. Pollution Control Chamber 9. Dump Stack 2. Hydraulic Loader 6. Heat Exchanger 10. Wet Ash Sump 3. Gas Production Chamber 7. Steam Separator 11. Conveyor 4. Transfer Rams 8. Energy Stack 12. Closed Bottom Container TYPICAL SOLID WASTE -TO -ENERGY MODULE (FROM CONSUMAT SYSTEMS, INC.) 2-5 0 • FIGURE 2.3 The above cutaway view of the stand- ard CONSUMAT" energy -from -waste module shows how material and hot gas flows are controlled to provide steam from solid waste. A skid steer tractor (1) pushes the waste to the automatic loader (2). The loader then automatically injects the waste into the gas production chamber (3) where transfer rams (4) move the material slowly through the system The high temperature environment in the gas production chamber is provided with a controlled quantity of air so that gases from the process are not burned in this chamber but fed to the upper or pollution control chamber (5). Here thegases are mixed with air and controlled to maintain a proper air fuel ratio and temperature for entrance into the heat exchanger (6) where steam is produced. A steam separator (7) is provided to ensure high quality steam In normal opera- tion gases are discharged through the energy stack (8). When steam is notreq or in theeventofapower failure, hot gases are vented through the dump stack (9). The inert mate- rial from the combustion process is ejected from the machine in the form of ash into the wet sump (10) and conveyed (11) into a closed bottom container (12) which can then be hauled to the landfill for final disposal. CROSS SECTION OF A TYPICAL SOLID WASTE -TO -ENERGY MODULE FROM CONSUMAT SYSTEMS, INC. 2-6 • required. These heated gases then flow through a heat exchanger where the heat is extracted to make hot water, steam, and/or electricity. After the heat exchanger, one or more pollution control type devices are added to reduce the amount of pollution in the air before it is discharged to the atmosphere. Figure 2.4 shows another example of a modular incinerator with a crane and charging pit on the front end of the operations, and some additional air pollution control devices on the facility. The proposed facility for Southold - Greenport would probably not have a crane, but instead a • tipping floor as shown on the left side of the illustration. ID Figure 2.5 shows a view of a typical modular plant. A number of manufacturers both in the United Stated and overseas have manufactured modular type incinerators in the 100 Ton per day range. These manufacturers include companies such as Basic Environmental Engineering, Brun & Sorenson, Cadoux, Clear Air, Consumat, and Westinghouse/O'Conner. There are other names which can also be added to this list. As previously mentioned, most of the experience in incineration has been overseas in Europe, Japan, and also in Canada. But modular incinerators have also been in operation in the U. S. since the mid 60's. 2 - 7 • n m O n Zrni Z ..- m �o ! z FIGURE 2.4 EXAMPLE OF ANOTHER MODULAR INCINERATOR ./ 1 y,.,• -r • MAW • The processes for converting the solid waste to energy in each of these facilities is somewhat different, however, they all have some common features. The most common feature of all these units is the modular concept. That is, the incineration of the solid waste and the handling of the ash is done by a series of independent modules. The obvious advantage of this type of system is that if something should happen to one of the modules the other ones will remain in operation and continue to process the solid waste. Other common features of these units include a two chamber combustion process. In the first chamber the solid waste is • incinerated and waste gases are generated. In the second u chamber, which is located adjacent to the primary chamber, the waste gases are incinerated. The advantage of this secondary chamber is that operating temperatures are high enough to incinerate most of the pollutants generated in the primary combustion chamber. As evidence of this, we can point to a nearby facility in Windham, Connecticut, which met its' air pollution requirements without the use of the air pollution control equipment installed at that particular facility. 2 - 10 Following this incineration section is a heat recovery section in the process. Here, using some device such as a waste heat recover boiler, the heat from the air is transferred to water, which in turn makes steam, which in turn is used in a turbine to generate electricity. The final step in the process is the cleaning of the air before it is discharged to the atmosphere. The methods used to clean the air vary from one facility to another. A variety of different devices such as electrostatic precipitators (ESP), bag houses, wet or dry scrubbers, or other devices are used. The devices to be used on the 0 proposed facility will depend on the New York State D.E.C. regulations in effect at the time the facility is constructed. However, the technology exists to meet even the most stringent air pollution control regulations proposed in the United States. While experience with these modular units is varied, and depends upon the particular operator and the particular manufacturer, the newer facilities in general are extremely reliable. Most of the newer modular facilities have been able to obtain operational reliabilities in the 95% to 99$ range. This reliability results from the use of the modular concept, improvements in design and technology, and • improvements in operations and operations procedures. As 2 - 11 • with any mechanical system, whether it is a car or an incinerator, problems will occur. However, the key to efficient and profitable operations is a trained operations and maintenance staff, and adequate operations funding. One of the primary benefits of an incineration process is reducing the volume of solid waste. Generally, a 90$ reduction in the volume of solid waste is achievable. This translates into a significant reduction in landfill operating costs and an increase in the life of a landfill. For example, the present Cutchogue landfill has a life expectancy of another five years. If the burnable portion of the solid • waste entering that landfill could be incinerated today, the expected life of the landfill would more than triple. If the ash were used as a cover material, then the expected life of the landfill would increase from the current five years to 0 approximately twenty years. The NYS DEC's present position on ash is that it must be disposed of in a double lined landfill. However, there may be a possibility that a waiver could be obtained to use ash as a cover material. The depth of ash cover that may be permitted is undetermined. Also, after 1990 a double lined landfill will be required for bypassed waste (up to 10% of burnable capacity) and the remaining ash not used as a cover. 2 - 12 However, the extent and cost of a double lined landfill will be significantly reduced due to the much lower volume of the ash. 2.3 Development and Operation - Case Studies: The development and operation of modular type incinerators is only recently becoming accepted in the United States. On Long Island we know of only one "modular" type incinerator which is still currently in operation. This incinerator, more than a decade old, is located in the Town of Huntington. It consistantly puts out more incinerated solid waste than • its rated capacity, despite a lack of maintenance on the facility. An operating facility similar in technology to the proposed project, but approximately twice the size, has been in operation since early 1981 in Auburn, Maine. This is a 200 Ton per day facility which generates only steam. This steam is currently being sold to Pioneer Plastics, an industrial company adjacent to the incinerator. The facility supplies between 95% and 988 of Pioneer Plastics' steam load. The Auburn, Maine project was developed due to a lack of available landfill capacity and a need for volume reduction. • Unfortunately, the project was developed using g a piece -meal 2 - 13 • approach. First the site plans were prepared. Then a little while later some of the building drawings were prepared, then a little while later some of the process drawings were prepared. This resulted in project over -runs, shortages of parts, misuse of funds, and in general a very inefficient project development. In addition, the joint venture team was not able to properly finance the development of the project, and the project's continued operations and maintenance. As a result, in January of 1985 the City of Auburn took over the operations of the facility. In retrospect the City of Auburn would have done things 0 differently if they had it to do all over again. Instead of • generating only steam, they would have generated both electricity and steam. This would have allowed them more flexibility in the sale of energy, and allowed them to use the electricity generated also for in -plant use. They also would recommend complete plans, specifications, site development, environmental studies, and all other required engineering be performed prior to putting a shovel in the ground. In addition, they would recommend that the people who have the most money invested in the project be the people who operate the project. Only those people will "watch out for their investment". 2 - 14 LJ Another facility similar in size and technology to the proposed project was constructed in Windham, Connecticut in 1981. This facility is a 108 Ton per day modular incinerator. The facility was developed primarily because of a lack available landfill space. In fact, the Windham landfill was about to be closed by the State of Connecticut D.E.P. A nearby manufacturing firm indicated an interest in the steam that could be generated by a resource recovery facility and a contract was entered into in 1979. The facility was completed and put in operation in 1981. Although the facility has operated with a high degree of • reliability, there are also things that the Windham people would have done differently. In the process area they would recommend and, in fact, are installing, separate ash systems for each module. In addition, a larger tipping floor would allow them to absorb large surges in solid waste. Approximately two years ago their only steam customer closed its' doors and moved out of town. The Windham people have currently installed, and are now starting up, a 2.2 megawatt turbine which, in retrospect, they say should have been installed in the original facility. 2 - 15 • On a more positive note, the Windham facility has operated at a very high degree of reliability. It has been able to consistently burn almost all solid waste received at the facility. During initial testing for air pollution control it passed the air pollution control tests without using any of the air pollution control devices. And the ash generated by the solid waste facility is used as a landfill cover on a regular unlined sanitary landfill, similar to that type of landfill in Cutchogue. While this report has been limited to proven technologies currently in full scale operation with Municipal Solid Waste, • other technologies can also be investigated. • One such technology is the Waste Distillator. Its claimed advantage is less pollution generated for processing of solid waste. This claim needs further verification, as requested from the manufacturer. However, some disadvantages are: o Additional air pollution control is still required. o More personnel are required than for the 100 T.P.D. incinerator. o Pre-processing and more handling of the solid waste is required than for a 100 T.P.D. incinerator. 2 - 16 • KI 0 o Reliable detailed information on costs of construction and operation is not available since there is no 100 T.P.D. facility currently in operation. o While the technology seems to have been successful on pilot scale, the problems of upscaling the 100 T.P.D. are as yet unknown. As this technology develops further investigation may be warrented on its advantages, disadvantages, and costs. However, use of a technology not yet in full scale operation should be approached with caution. 2 - 17 • CHAPTER THREE ECONOMICS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE -TO -ENERGY PLANTS 3.1 Summary and Conclusions: The construction and operation of a solid waste -to -energy facility at the Cutchogue landfill appears to be feasible. The cost of such a project is approximately ten million dollars. The funds for this one hundred ton per day facility would come from a combination of sources. Approximately 50% of the funding could come from New York . State DEC and New York State ERDA. The remaining funds would come from private investors equity, low interest loans from the Farmers Home Administration, and Industrial Development Agency bonds through the private developer. If aid for the project is available at the 50% level then the tipping fees for the project would be approximately the same as the current operating cost at the Cutchogue landfill. Because the facility would also generate an increasing amount of income from electric sales the waste - to -energy project would also save the Town of Southold approximately six million dollars over a fifteen year period • of time. 3 - 1 • If funding for the project were at a lesser level, then the benefits would decrease. If there were no aid for the project at all the additional cost per home owner would be an extra $45.00 per year. However, if there were no project at all and the solid waste was burned at Riverhead, and the ashes returned to Cutchogue, the additional cost for each home owner would be $315.00 per year. This Riverhead incineration option would cost the residents of the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport an additional 2.7 million dollars for every year the project existed. The development of this economics analysis starts with a no - action alternative of continuing to landfill without any incineration. Next, incineration costs and the offsetting income from electrical sales are examined. And finally, home owner costs for different options are explored. 3.2 Landfilling Costs: Projected landfill costs for the Town of Southold were developed from interviews and discussions with New York State DEC and Town of Southold officials and operating personnel. We have assumed that the Town would be able to use the existing landfill until the year 1990. After that 3 2 • time, the State will require a double lined landfill with a leachate collection and treatment system. The projected costs for operating the landfill are shown on Figure 3.1. Over the next five year period the costs are expected to increase only by a very small amount. However, in the year 1990 the costs of operating the landfill are expected to jump from a projected $14.00 per Ton to $21.70 per Ton due to liner and leachate collection requirements. This is a 55$ increase in operating costs. As time goes on, the replacement of equipment, the increase • in solid waste, and the increase in the number of needed operating personnel, as well as the effect of inflation, will increase the operating cost to $38.60 per Ton twenty years from now. With no offsetting income from electric sales the end of the rise in these costs is nowhere in sight. However, solid waste -to -energy plants do generate income which increases as electric rates rise. 3.3 incineration Costs: Present day costs for a modular incinerator plant with electric generation capabilities were obtained from several vendors. The cost of the incinerator including air pollution control equipment to meet currently proposed New York State DEC regulations is shown in Table 3.1. 3 - 3 • • i 1600+ /$38.60/Ton FIGURE 3.1 1400+ PROJECTED LANDFILL COSTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD to (200 ♦ /$29.10/Ton $30.60/Ton 1000+ $26/Ton LINED LANDFILL $25.50%O ea��e ot` e Go11 $21.90/Ton 800 + I . , / rn 600+ M m D M 400 $13/Ton 200 i $21.70/Ton Assumptions: 1. Replace bulldozers $ payloaders at 5 yr. intervals. ♦� $17.40/Ton i2. Add second bulldozer in year 15. + ♦� i3. Replace chipper & mulcher at 7 year intervals. 4 Add C-1 1 k S `UNLINED LANDFILL 2 4 6 8 0 2 one time nor er every in- tervals. S. Inflation at 5%/year. �6. Capital cost financing at 10%. 7. Liner & leachate treatment $1.2 million capital cost and $125,000/yr. O&M cost. L l 1 A. 14 16 18 20 n U TABLE 3.1 PROJECTED PROJECT COSTS FOR A SOLID WASTE -TO -ENERGY PLANT I. Capital Costs: A. Modular Incinerator 100 TPD capacity: Process: 2 - 50 TPD Modular Incinerators, 1 Boiler, 1 Turbine. Air Pollution Control for particulates and acid gas control. Building complete with Components. Site Grading and Drainage. Roadways and Scale. Complete - - - $ 7,200,000 • B. Ancilliary Equipment - Well for Water Supply, 1 Small Wastewater Plant, and Landfill Gas Collection & Utility Interconnection $ 700,000 ------------ $ 7,900,000 C. Contingencies (10$) $ 800,000 D. Engineering, Legal, Administrative (15$) $ 1,300,000 ------------ • Total Capital Cost - - - $ 10,000,000 Cost Per Ton based on 100 TPD - - - $ 100,000/Ton II. Operation & Maintenance: A. Incineration Including Ash Disposal - - - - - $ 850,000 B. Wastewater, Water, Methane Systems - - - - - $ 50,000 ------------ $ 900,0O0/Yr. Cost per Ton Based on 36,600 TPY Rated Capacity = $ 24.60 3 - 5 • Added to the cost of the incinerator are other costs needed to complete the project. Included in these costs are ancilliary equipment such as a well for water supply, a small waste water treatment plant to treat wash water from the floor and sanitary waste, landfill gas collection, and utility interconnection. Also included is a 10$ contingency for unexpected items and a 15$ allowance for engineering, legal and administrative expenses involved with the project. Operation and maintenance expenses include the labor, parts, and utility expenses involved with the operation of the incinerator including landfill ash disposal. Also included • are operation costs for water supply, waste water, and • methane collection systems. These cost estimates assume private "ownership" and operation of the facility. We have not included any taxes or money in lieu of taxes that might be paid by a private entrepreneur since any additional taxes paid would only result in higher operating costs or increase in the tipping fee. In addition, the vendor generally invests 20% or more of the project costs. 3 - 6 C Funding for this project can come from two possible sources. One source is the New York State DEC through the Environmental Quality Bond Act. This allows up to a 50$ funding of resource recovery projects. At present, 46.5 million dollars of funding has been allocated to various projects on Long Island. Additional funds over that amount have also allocated to projects in upstate New York. In order to receive funding on this proposed project, portions of either of those allocations must be reallocated to this project by the New York State DEC. This reallocation can be initiated by writing a letter to Harold Berger, the Regional Administrator of New York State DEC requesting the proposed 0 aid. Another possible source of funding is available from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (ERDA). The Authority will participate on a joint basis (50/50) on projects or portions of projects which involve innovative concepts. Possible areas of participation on this project could involve the methane collection and utilization to decrease the amount of particulate emission and to control the combustion process, incinerator instrumentation and controls to also assist in more uniform burning of the solid waste, or fast hardwood farming to grow a supplemental fuel to be used in the facility. These possible items and others • can be explored more fully once the project proceeds. 3 - 7 • Anticipated funding for a solid waste -to -energy plant is summarized in Table 3.2. The Table shows two possible scenarios. One scenario is with the maximum available aid for the project. The other scenario is without any aid at all for the project. A project with maximum aid will result in a tipping fee approximately the same as the current operation costs for the landfill, and a project income of $20.20 per Ton for every Ton of solid waste incinerated. If there is no aid on the project, then the tipping fee is approximately doubled. The economics of these two scenarios, when compared with • continuing the operation of the existing landfill, are shown Figure 3.2. Incineration with 50% aid and with a projected income from sale of the electricty allows a very moderate increase in the cost of solid waste disposal over the next 20 years. This would result in a savings of over six million dollars in landfill operating costs over a 15 year period of time and twenty years from now the annual savings in operating costs would be approximately seven hundred thousand dollars in savings per year. The operation of the incinerator without any aid would result in substantially less savings. However, the effect on home owner costs for individual home owners in Southold and Greenport is not significant. 3 - 8 • TABLE 3.2 ANTICIPATED PROJECT FUNDING FOR A SOLID WASTE -TO -ENERGY PLANT I. Capital Costs: A. Total required capitol - - - - - - - $ 10,000,000 With Aid Without Aid B. Funding Sources: 1. N.Y.S.D.E.C. - Env. Bond - Grant (50%) $ 5,000,000 -- 2. Project Developers (20% Equity) $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 3. FmHA (40 Yr. Loan at 9 1/2$) $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 4. IDA Bond.(20 Yr. at 8 1/2$) $ ------------ 1,700,000 $ 6,700,000 Total $ 10,000,000 ------------ $ 10,000,000 • C. Annual Costs: Item B.3 165,900 165900 Item B.4 ------------ 179,600 708,,000 Total Annual $ 345,500 ------------ $ 873,900 Cost/Ton Based on 36,600 TPY $ 9.40/Ton $ 23.90/Ton II. 0 & M Costs: $ 900,000/Year $ 24.60/Ton Total Cost/Ton $ 34.00 $ 48.50/Ton III. Project Income: A. Tipping Fees $ 13.50 $ 28.30 B. Electric Sales 355 KwH's/Ton at 6.0 cents/KwH X .95 $ 20.20 $ 20.20 Total Income per Ton $ 33.70 $ 48.50 Note: (1) Funding source not included consists of possible additional funding available for N.Y.S. Energy Research & Development Authority on Methane Systems, Incinerator Instrument & Controls • and/or Fast Hardwood Farming. 50% cost participation dependent on project uniqueness. x O C z v O r> y A M m rl • • • 14004 1400+ 1200+ 1000+ 600+ 600+ FIGURE 3.2 DISPOSAL COSTS LANDFILL VS. INCINERATION INCINERATION — NO AID $33.60/ton 1 ;��/ 31.� $30.60/toy $33.40/ton $29.70/ton =6 000000! LANDFILL DISPOSAL 1 ' $25.50/ton $21.70/ton $19.10/to` 18.20/ton ♦/ 1 $14.50/ton � $14/ton 400 ♦� $13/ton' $16.60/ton 010 T $38.60/ton I +$39.50/ton $700,000 $25.00/ton INCINERATION WITH 50% AID (1) Notes: (1) 50% funding from NVS DEC I (2) Incineration assumes incomes from electric sales as follows: Y-1985, Gd.;� yr. 1990, 6.3�; yr 1955, 8.24, yr. 1997,1 10¢: yr. 2000; 10.64; yr. 2005, l2t/kwh.� 200+ t 47 1 b & & A 6 KI 3.4 Homeowner Costs: The average household contribution of municipal solid waste in the Greenport -Southold area is approximately 15 1/2 pounds per day. On an annual basis this well over two tons per household per year. These numbers are based on a weighted yearly population which includes the seasonal population fluctuations and it includes wastes from commercial, apartments and other municipal type sources. A summary of the municipal solid waste contributions is given in Table 3.3. A summary of homeowner costs for solid waste disposal is given in Table 3.4. The Table presents four possible options for solid waste disposal in the Southold -Greenport area. Option 1 is for continued landfilling at the Cutchogue site. Current homeowner costs for such an operation is approximately $173.00 per year for each household. This includes $136.00 per year for collection costs which are paid to the carter, and $37.00 a year for the cost of operating the landfill. 3 - 11 • • • TABLE 3.3 SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE CONTRIBUTIONS A. Total Current MSW(')- - - - - - - - 24,200 Tons/Year B. Contribution - Per Person (2) 4.7 Pounds/Day 1,700 Pounds/Year 0.85 Tons/Year C. Contribution - Per Household (3) 15.5 Pounds/Day 5,700 Pounds/Year 2.8 Tons/Year Notes: (1) Includes wastes from commercial, apartments and residential. (2) Based on yearly weighted population of 28,331. (3) Based on 3.3 persons/household. 3 - 12 • TABLE 3.4 SUMMARY OF HOMEOWNER COSTS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Option ` Year 5/Ton 1. Landfilling at Cutchogue A. Collection(l) $ 136 $ 48 B. Landfill Operation $ 37 $ 13 Total $ 173 $ 61 2. Incineration at Cutchogue - With Aid A. Collection (1) $ 136 $ 48 B. Incineration & Ash Disposal(2) $ 48 $ 14 • Total $ 176 $ 62 3. Incineration at Cutchogue - Without Aid A. Collection $ 136 $ 48 B. Incineration & A;sh Disposal $ 85 $ 38 Total $ 221 $ 78 4. Incineration at Riverhead A. Collection $ 136 $ 48 B. Transfer $ 91 $ 32 C. Incineration $ 99 $ 35 $ 326 $ 115 D. Ash Disposal at Cutchogue �3� $ 210 $ 744) $ 536 $ 189 Notes: (1) Based on average North Fork costs and two pick- ups/week. (2) Based on 50% Aid. (3) $15/Ton/mi. X 20 miles X 0.7 Tons Ash/Yr. • = $210/year/household. (4) $210 divided by 2.8 Tons/Year/Household. 3 - 13 • If an incinerator capable of generating electricity were constructed at the Cutchogue site with the maximum amount of available aid, the cost to the homeowner would be approximately the same as it is now with operation of the existing landfill. As years pass, these costs would increase substantially less than if landfilling continued at the Cutchogue site. If incineration with power generation at the Cutchogue site was instituted without aid, the cost to the homeowner would increase by approximately $45.08 per year. There are obvious environmental and operational benefits for pursuing • incineration even without aid. These will be explored more fully in a subsequent chapter. However, if additional solid waste could be obtained from either Riverhead or East Hampton, or from additional area growth, the economics of this option would become more attractive since the cost per homeowner would decrease. As a last and final option, we have included the incineration of Southold -Greenport solid waste at a site in Riverhead. This option would include a waste transfer station or, in lieu of the transfer station, an added cost for transporting the waste a longer distance to Riverhead and coming back with • empty trucks. Additionally, we have assumed that the ash disposal from the Riverhead facility would have to be 3 - 14 • at a site other than Riverhead. If ash were disposed of at the Cutchogue site, then some type of solid waste for ash exchange program could be worked out with the Riverhead facility. This particular option adds another $315.80 per year per household to the cost of solid waste disposal. For the estimated number of households in this Southold - Greenport area, this amounts to over 2.7 million dollars additional per year that the households of this area would have to pay. While the economics of a municipal solid waste -to -energy • plant appears to point positively toward the implementation of such a project, the social and environmental factors of such a facility should also be considered. These will be explored more fully in the next chapter. 0 3 - 15 • 0 • CHAPTER FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS OF MUNICIPAL'SOLID WASTE -TO -ENERGY PLANTS 4.1 Summary and Conclusions: Municipal Solid Waste -To -Energy plants emit a wide range of compounds classified as air pollutants. Modular incinerator technology coupled with commercially available air pollution control equipment and good plant operations can reduce emissions from resource recovery facilities to very low levels. These processes and equipment can reduce total hydrocarbons (THC), carbon monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions through the use of combustion modifications; reduce particulate emissions (PM) through the use of properly designed flue gas controls such as fabric filter systems; and reduce sulfur dioxide (SO ) and hydrogen 2 chloride (HCL) emissions through the use of flue gas controls and wet or dry scrubbing systems. The maintenance of minimum furnace combustion temperatures of 1688' F. and a one second resident time will also insure that both heavy metal and organic emissions are minimized. The projected emission rate for this modular technology with pollution control equipment is shown in Table 4.1 below. 4 - 1 u • TABLE 4.1 PROJECTED EMISSION OF AIR POLLUTANTS FROM A MODULAR INCINERATOR FACILITY EMPLOYING COMBUSTION MODIFICATION AND POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT POLLUTANTS NOx S02 THC (as CHO CO HCL THC TSP 2 - 10 Microns < 2 Microns Metals Organics EMISSIONS POUNDS/106 BTU PPM (at 12% CO_) I REMOVED 0.26 140 0.08 30 80 - 90 .045 70 0.18 10 0.04 30 90 - 95 + 0.001 . 06 0.01gr/dscf 97.97 0.008gr/dscf Three different standards were recognized and considered in the development of this report: The New York State D.E.C. Standards; the Citizen's Task Force Standards; and those prepared by the California Air Resources Board. Of the the three, the California Air Resources Board is more stringent. • especially as far as particulate removal is concerned which 4 - 2 • has emission limits of 0.01 grains per dry standard cubic foot corrected at 12% CO The equipment, systems and 2 technology reviewed in this study can meet the California Air Resources Board Standards. The generation of solid waste is a product of a people environment, and to eliminate solid waste and its inherent problems, of course, would require the elimination of the people which is not a practical consideration. There are basically two choices for the processing and disposal of solid waste. One is a landfill, which is now what is presently being done, and the second is a waste -to -energy • system which is the basis of this particular study. 0 Continuing the use of landfill as a means of processing solid waste creates a definite hazard to the ground water because of the pollutants that are contained in a landfill leachate. For example, the leachate of a typical landfill will contain 3,000 to 10,000 parts per million of desolved solids, and have a BOD in the range of 1200 to 1500. To put this in a comparison type prospective, the BOD of raw sewage prior to any treatment is in the neighborhood of 250 to 300. In addition, the leachate contains many other potential contaminants such as chlorides, sulfates, etc. 4 - 3 • U] A municipal solid waste -to -energy 100 Ton/day plant, well managed and operated using the latest modular incinerator technology will generate approximately 500 pounds of pollutants per year. To put this in perspective, and for comparison purposes, the oil fired heating units in the residences of Southold Town generate approximately 3600 pounds of pollutants per year. Based on the environmental impact alone, it is concluded that the pollutants generated by a well managed, up-to-date technology modular waste -to -energy plant is much less a potential environmental hazard then that that would be generated by continuation of the present landfill operation. The economic comparisons between landfill and waste -to - energy plants is covered elsewhere within this report. 4.2 Air Pollutants Froin MSW Plants and Methods of Control: The following is a list of pollutants, emissions source, and recommended methods of control: 4 - 4 • 1. Oxides of Nitrogen: Oxides of Nitrogen are formed both by the oxidation of nitrogen in the fuel and the nitrogen in the combustion air. Combustion modifications are the primary means of reducing NOx emissions and include stage combustions and low air surface to air techniques which are particularly effective in mass refuse burning facilities. 2. Sulfur Dioxide and Hydrogen Chloride: Sulfur Dioxide is formed by the oxidation of sulfur in the fuel, and when combined with water in the air form sulfuric acid which is one of the causes of acid rain. Hydrogen Chloride • and Hydrogen Fluoride are formed from chlorine and fluorine in the fuel, in this case solid waste. Polyvinyl chloride and polyethylene are the major sources of chlorine. Emissions of acid gases can best be controlled through the use of flue gas controls, which include either wet or dry scrubbing systems. Dry scrubbers with residence time can reduce acid gases to 90% to 98% use of fabric filter systems downstream of dry scrubbers increases the removal efficiencies of acid gases. 0 4 - 5 LJ 3. Particulate Matter Control: Combustion of municipal solid waste would generate a significant quantity of particulate matter which is emitted as a result of incomplete combustion of fuel as well as entrainment of noncombustibles in the flue gas stream. These particulates may exit either as solids or aerosols and range in particle size from less than 0.1 microns to 500 microns, with the majority of the particulate less than 10 microns. Particles of less than 10 microns also represent the inhalable faction. Fabric filter type bag houses are the best means of controlling the level of particulate emissions. It has been demonstrated that • these systems can achieve an emission limit of 0.01 grains per dry standard cubic foot corrected to 12% CO . 2 This represents a removal efficiency of approximately 99.7%. The present New York State proposed standard has a limit of 0.03 grains, which represents a 98.9% removal efficiency. 4. Carbon Monoxide and Hydrocarbons: Carbon Monoxide and Hydrocarbons are generally products of incomplete oxidation of carbon compounds in the refuse stream. The emission of these pollutants are also aggravated by overly wet or large loads of refuse, • or inadequate supply of combustion air. Modular units 4 - 6 • have lower emission rates of these type of pollutants than do the waterwall units. The best method of control is good mixing in the combustion unit combined with proper temperature residence time. 5. Metals: Metallic compounds can be emitted from the incinderation of municipal solid waste either as an aerosol or fine particles in the fly ash. The most effective control of metalic compounds emissions is the efficient removal of fine fly ash through a fabric filter system. Removal efficiency by the method is in the range of 99%. • 6. Trace Organic Compounds: Organic compounds in the emissions of solid waste plants are of particular concern and include dioxins (PCDDs) and residential oil Fired heating units have a relatively high organic emissions because of the generally inefficient combustion and the low operating temperature. The best method for control of these organic emissions is the maintenance of the operating temperatures at 1800• F. with a 1 second residence time. Tests have shown that this method will result in 99% destruction of toxic organic materials. • 4 - 7 • E 0 4.3 incinerator Residue (Ash) From Modular Incinerator (!nits: The EPA has performed several tests on the ash and residues of incinerator plants as shown in Table 4.2 The ash and incinerator residue for all of these incinerator plants was found to be non -hazardous, however, the fly ash when collected separately, especially from the RDF plant and the large mass burning plant contained greater concentrations of cadmium and lead and the ash leachate than allowed by regulations. 1n most resouce recovery plants the fly ash is automatically conveyed and mixed with the bottom ash. When this is accomplished the resulting mixture combined residue is determined to be non -hazardous as per EPA regulations. 4 - 8 • TABLE 4.2 EP TOXICITY TEST RESULTS OBSERVED CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) • Chromium MAXIMUM SMALL LARGE MASS 0.038 Lead PERMITTED MODULAR BURNING PLANT RDF PLANT CONTAMINANT CONCEN- INCINERATOR Composited Fly Bottom Selenium TRATIONS Incinerator Ash and Bottom Ash Silver 5.0 Residue Ash as Landfill 0.001 Arsenic 5.0 < .0025 <0.0025 <0.0025 Barium 100.0 0.488 0.184 0.131 Cadmium 1.0 0.020 0.251 0.018 • Chromium 5.0 0.032 0.039 0.038 Lead 5.0 0.870 0.337 0.203 Mercury 0.2 0.0065 0.0001 <0.0001 Selenium 1.0 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025 Silver 5.0 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 1. Maximum allowable concentrations in EP Test. (ppm) 2. Small modular incinerator, steam -generating, burns residential waste only, 75 TPD. 3. Steam -Generating municipal solid waste incinerator, capacity of over 1000 TPD, no industrial waste burned. • 4. Steam -generating RDF incinerator, burns MSW, commercial waste, selected industrial waste, 300 TPD. < Below instrument detection level. 4 - 9 • 4.4 Comparisons and Standards for Pollution Control: There are three sets of standards for pollution control that are discussed in this Study. The first one is the recently prepared set of Emmission Standards by the D.E.C. Task Force; the second one was a report that was released in April of 1984 by the Citizens Task Force of Resouce Recovery in New York State; and the third one is the set of standards established by the California Air Resources Board. These sets of standards are summarized in the Table 4.4 below. • TABLE 4.3 • COMPARISONS OF STANDARDS FOR POLLUTION CONTROL D.E.C. CITIZENS TASK FORCE CALIFORNIA PARTICULATE 0.03 gr/dscf 8.02 gr/dscf 8.01 gr/dscf S02 70% (50 ppm) 70$ (50 ppm) 80-90$ 30 ppm HCL 90% (50 ppm) 90$ (50 ppm) 95$ (30 ppm) NOx 140-200 ppm CO 400 ppm METALS 99% (fine fly - ash removal) ORGANIC 99$ Destruction 99% Destruction 4 - 10 i • You will note from the above Table, that the California Air Resources Board standards for pollution control are more stringent than either the D.E.C. or the Citizen's Task Force. California feels that these standards of emmission control can be maintained with the utilization of presently available air pollution control equipment and the proper operation of a municipal waste -to -energy facility. To provide a better appreciation of the emmissions from a waste -to -energy plant system, a comparison was developed between the pollutants emmitted from oil fired household boilers and furnaces and a one hundred ton per day solid waste -to -energy plant. As the basis for this comparison are based on BTU's produced it was necessary to calculate estimated values of the total BTU's of fuel oil burned in Southold Town. To provide the basis, the 1980 census figure of 6,000 residences was used. A further assumption was made that 90% of these residences burned No. 2 fuel oil, and that average hour heating load during the winter season is 30,000 BTU's per hour. A solid waste -to -energy plant would 8 generate approximately ten million BTU's per Ton, or 9 X 10 9 BTU's per day. This compares to 5.16 X 10 BTU's that would be generated from all the residences in Southold Town based on the 1980 census. 4 - 11 • You will note from the Table below that the emmissions per B.T.U. from a 100 Ton per day MSW plant are significantly lower that that emitted from oil fired residential heating equipment. The pounds of each type of pollutant are similar except for SO which is significantly higher for the 2 households and HCL which is higher for the MSW plant. The increased rate of emmissions from a modular waste -to -energy plant could be compared to increasing by approximately 900 the number of oil heated residences in Southold Town. TABLE 4.4 . COMPARISONS BETWEEN EMMISSIONS FROM RESIDENCES AND A 100 TON PER DAY MSW PLANT Total Total Rate in Pounds/10 BTU Estimated Lbs. Estimated Lbs. of Pollution/Yr. of Pollution/Yr. MSW Residence MSW Residence NOx .3 .3 270 1540 PM .01 .015 9 77 SO2 .08 .35 72 1800 THC .045 .007 41 36 CO 0.1 .04 90 200 HCL .04 -- 36 -- Organics Not Available LA 4 - 12 4.5 Other Environmental and Social Impacts of Municipal Solid Waste -to -Energy Plants: Other potentially environmental and social impacts from the construction and operation of a Municipal Solid Waste -To - Energy Plant would include: 1. Physical Appearance and Location Of a Waste -To -Energy Plant - Psychologically, based primarily on the general public's concepts of an incineration operation, it would be difficult to obtain approval to locate a S plant of this type in close proximity to a residential area. Modular plant design with the absence of high stack requirements and the feasibility to house equipment in structures whose designs are similar to other commercial type activities, such as warehousing and light industrial activities, make it practical to limit visual impact of the plant, especially when sited in an industrial zoned area. • 4 - 13 • 2. Noise: The primary source of noise from the operation of a Solid Waste -To -Energy Plant is that generated by trucks and other vehicular traffic that deliver solid waste material to the plant site. This impact, however, is the same whether for a landfill, a transfer station. or a Waste -To -Energy plant. If consideration is given to location of plant at other than the present landfill, the impact of noise would need to be evaluated accordingly. 3. Odor. • Odor is routinely associated in the immediate vicinity of both landfill and incineration operations. The placement of correctly designed and efficiently operated incinerators in a closed building, and drawing combustion air from within the building, effectively limits the spread of odors from a Waste -To -Energy plant. 4. Pollution from Diesel Generator Operation: Continuous operation of a diesel electric generating facility adds significantly to air pollution and has the additional hazards of ground contamination from oil spills and storage tank leakage. 4 - 14 • • 0 4.6 Landfill Pollution: Leachate from landfill is generally considered a contaminated liquid. The construction and operation of a waste -to -energy plant because of volume reduction, and the type of material - namely ash - that would be placed in the landfill, would significantly reduce the amount of leachate that is now being produced. E.P.A. has done considerable testing on the generation and volume of leachate in landfills. Of the test data collected, the annual leachate varies from approximately .6 liters to 2 liters per kilogram of dry refuse. The present Southold landfill receives approximately 900,000 pounds per year. Assuming, conservatively, 30$ moisture this calculates to 600,000 pounds of dry weight per year, or 8 converted to metric, it is 5.5 X 10 kilograms of dry refuse. Using an average of 1 liter per kilogram results in a 5.5 X e 10 liters of contaminated leachate accumulated every year. This, in turn, calculates to approximately 5,000,000 gallons of leachate per year. If this volume of contaminated leachate could be reduced, it would greatly lessen the potential adverse impact to the surrounding groundwater aquifer. 4 - 15 • 0 • On September 2, 1983 the firm of H2M sampled ground water from two test wells in the peripheral of the landfill. The analysis of the ground water from one of these wells is shown in the following Table 4.6. Ground water sampling directly beneath the landfill, or in the center of the landfill, has not been accomplished and, therefore, not available at this time. EPA test data, however, indicates that the total desolved solids from leachate from a typical landfill range from 3,000 to 10,000 ppm, with a COD of 2,000 to 2,500, and a BOD of 1200 to 1500, and ammonia approximately 250. As a comparison raw sewage has a BOD of only 250 - 300. A summary of Social and Environmental impacts is shown in Table 4.6. 4 - 16 • • 0 TABLE 4.5 GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA CUTCHOGUE LANDFILL TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Parameter Chlorides Ammonia (-N) Specific Conductivity* pH* MBAS (Detergents) TDS Sulfates Arsenic Copper Iron Lead Zinc Manganese Calcium Magnesium Hardness COD Groundwater Monitoring Wells (ID No./Date/Laboratory) 5-68916 9/2/83 H2M 440 113 3700 6.9 0.10 1370 200 2. 5 FF .05 0.87 Q FF .03 9.9 117 57.0 526 190 * All results are in mg/1 except specific conductivity (umhoa), pH (std. units), and concentrations indicated as FF, which are in ug/1. 4 - 17 • Incinerator E, • TABLE 4.6 SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS POSITIVE NEGATIVE Pollution 1. Reduces amount of pollutants through incineration. Social 1. Generates energy for electricity and low cost steam/hot water to attract industry and jobs. 2. Reduces volume of S.W. by 90%. 3. Reduces wear and tear on landfill equipment due to less voklume. 4. Yearly rising income from electric sales offsets operating costs. 5. Modular - high track record reliability. 6. New Generating Plant. 4 - 18 Pollution I. Generates some air pollution but quantity can be controlled. Amount equivalant to $ of all household furnaces in Southold. 2. Uses 10 gpm of make-up water. • • E TABLE 4.6 (Continued) SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS POSITIVE NEGATIVE Landfill Social 1. Was "cheaper" to operate when liner and leachate was not required. 4 - 19 Pollution 1. Generated leachate which contaminates groundwater. current MSW of 24,208 TPY generates lbs. of pollution/year from an estimated 5,000,000 gallons of leachate. 2. Attracts seagulls and other animals. 3. Noise of equipment operation. 4. Wind blown papers. 5. Fires. 6. Dust and dirt blowing from wind and operations is a health hazard. 7. Methane explosions - health and safety hazard. Social 1. Unsightly. 2. Unlawful after 1990. 3. Operational costs rise with no offsetting income. • CHAPTER FIVE ANALYSIS OF UTILIZING SOLID WASTE AS A SOURCE OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY FOR VILLAGE OF GREENPORT 5.1 Summary and Conclusions: A Municipal Solid Waste -To -Energy plant could provide a majority of the Village of Greenport's electrical base load. The Village's base load for 1983 and 1984 ranged from approximately 2 megawatts to 3 megawatts. A waste -to -energy plant with a mass balance waste stream has the potential to produce 1.3 megawatts to 2.0 megawatts of base load. 5.2 Projected Village Power Demands: There is some difficulty in accurately projecting the Greenport demands for the year 2000. Based on Planning Board projections, the increase in population of the Village of Greenport between 1984 and 2000 is approximately 10$. The year round population for the year 2000 is projected as 2,625. These projections, however, do not take into consideration such things as the proposed annexation or replacement some older type residences with garden type apartments which will increase the population density. If • these take place, along with some other of the planned Village improvements, the projected population increase 5 - 1 0 LI • could be closer to 20%, or a total of approximately 3,100 for the year 2000. Table 5.1 shows the 1984 power used in the Village of Greenport, the 1984 base load, and the year 2005 base loads based on a 10% increase of population, and a 20% increase in population. 5 - 2 • TABLE 5.1 VILLAGE OF GREENPORT ELECTRIC POWER PROJECTIONS APRIL 1,465,510 POWER 1984 YEAR 2005 YEAR 2005 MONTH KWH BASE LOAD K.W. BASE LOAD BASE LOAD 2,527 2,756 2,118 + 10$ K.W. + 20$ K.W. JANUARY 1,981,680 2,752 3,027 3,302 FEBRUARY 1,645,870 2,286 2,515 2,743 MARCH 1,800,720 2,501 2,750 3,000 APRIL 1,465,510 2,035 2,239 2,442 MAY 1,480,840 2,056 2,260 2,467 JUNE 1,653,590 2,297 2,527 2,756 JULY 1,850,210 2,562 2,818 3,074 AUGUST 1,910,900 2,654 2,919 3,184 SEPTEMBER 1,524,990 2,118 2,330 2,541 OCTOBER 1,480,460 2,056 2,262 2,467 NOVEMBER 1,557,360 2,163 2,379 2,596 DECEMBER 1,726,630 2,398 2,638 2,878 TOTAL 20,078,760 27,878 380,664 33,450 5 - 3 5.3 Calculated MSW Plant Power Production: The production of electricity from a ton of MSW ranges from 355 to 480 K.W., depending on plant tenchologies and efficiencies. This represents, for a 100 Ton per day plant, 1.3 to 2.0 megawatts of production. Another alternative to increase the average power production is to average the waste stream load by mass balancing the quantities of waste available. By chipping and storing brush during peak month periods, by utilizing the landfill methane, and by including Shelter Island waste stream into the total waste available, an average of 90 ton per day can be • available in 1985, with an average of 98 ton available per day for year 2005. This also takes into consideration that 100% of the methane would be used in 1985 and a much lesser percent would be utilized 20 years later. Table 5.2 portrays the electric power availability with mass balance as compared with the Village base loads. TABLE 5.2 AVERAGE M.S.W. POWER PRODUCTION WITH MASS BALANCE - 1985-2005 Average Electricity Electricity Average Average Ton/Day Prod./Hr. Prod./Hr. Village Village With Mass at 355 K.W. at 480 K.W. Base Load Base Load Balance per Ton per Ton 1985 2005 90 1,330 1,800 2,400 2,555 (10%) • 98 1,500 2,000 2,788 (20%) 5 - 4 • 5.4 Plant Location: Only two potential plant locations were investigated. One would be adjacent to the present Greenport Scavenger Waste Plant, and the second location at the Southold Town Landfill. The only potential advantage to locating the plant in the Greenport Village would be the closeness to the present power center for distribution to the Greenport Village grid system. This advantage is more than offset by locating the plant at the present Southold Town Landfill, which is closer to the geographic center of the Town. It is also where the present waste stream is trucked to and is adjacent an existing landfill for ash disposal. The rerouting of private vehicles and carters to the Village of Greenport site would result in an adverse impact as far as vehicular traffic is concerned. Conversations with Lilco officials indicate that power generated at the Cutchogue landfill site could be wheeled to the Village of Greenport at very low cost, and they could anticipate no restrictions for such a wheeling operation. 5.5 Economics of Use of M.S.W. Plant Produced Electricity: With the projected PASNY contract with the Village of Greenport, and the estimated purchase price of 3.0 to 3.5 cents per K.W., there is very little incentive for the • Village of Greenport to utilize M.S.W. plant produced 5 - 5 • electricity or to generate their own electricity with the diesel generators presently within the Power Plant building. However, if because of problems with LILCO feeders it becomes impossible to wheel PASNY hydro power from upstate New York, then the Village is faced with one of three choices - generating their own power, buying it from LILCO, or using M.S.W. plant produced power. 1985 power production costs include $ .09 per K.W. if generated by the Village Power Plant, approximately $ .07 per K.W. if produced by an M.S.W. plant, and $ .11 to $ .12 per K.W. if purchased from LILCO. A decision by the Village of Greenport to generate their own • power has some adverse economic considerations. It is estimated that approximately $175,000.00 would be needed in the first year to bring the plant up to good operating condition. In addition, the age of the present generating units needs to be taken into consideration. Generator Number 4 was purchased in 1956, Number 5 was purchased in 1964, and Number 6 (the 38/40 K.W. unit) was purchased in summer of 1971. The estimated present day purchase replacement cost of the Number 6 unit is approximately three million dollars. It is concluded that a long term continuous operation of the Village Power Plant is not an economically viable alternative if PASNY power should not be available. 9 • based on the average hourly production available from an M.S.W. plant, approximately 75 - 88$ of the Greenport Village's base load could be provided from such a generating facility. However, these figures represent average hourly loads and do not take into consideration peak loads and lower than average loads. For example, it is anticipated that an M.S.W. waste -to - energy plant can handle the Village power needs from late evening until approximately seven o'clock in the morning. Another operating alternative would be to utilize the M.S.W. produced electricity as a base load and operate the Village generators for peaking loads only. This scenario may reduce overall maintenance costs and may extend the life of the • older generating units. C� 5.6 Sale of M.S.W. Plant Produced Electricity: Electrical energy produced by a M.S.W. solid waste plant is required to be purchased at the avoided costs by the local utility company - in this case the Long Island Lighting Company. Their projected purchase costs for 1985 are approximately $0.06, for 1990 $0.06, and for the year 2885 $ .12. A table of projected gross income per year for sale of M.S.W. plant produced electricity is shown in Table 5.3. 5 - 7 • TABLE 5.3 PROJECTED GROSS INCOME PER YEAR FOR SALE OF M.S.W. PLANT PRODUCED ELECTRICITY INCOME/YR. FROM SALE OF ELECT. TO LILCO AV. ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION/EA. .06/K.W. .08/K.W. .12/K.W. 1800 779,600 1,036,800 1,555,200 1960 846,720 1,128,960 1,693,440 2460 1,058,400 1,411,200 2,116,800 • Year = 300 Days • 5 - 8 E • APPENDIX A AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM MSW PLANTS AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES The following is a list of pollutants and emissions source experienced by municipal solid waste plants and technologies utilized for control: NOTE: The majority of the following information was obtained from the California Air Resources Board report on Air Pollution Control at Resource Recovery Facilities, dated May 24, 1984. 1. Oxides Of Nitrogen: Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) are compounds consisting of nitrogen and oxygen and are products of all combustion processes. Nitric oxide (NO) is the predominant form of NOx during combustion, although NO is also produced in small amounts. NOx 2 emissions result from two separate sources during combustion. In the first, NOx is formed by the oxidation of nitrogen in the fuel, and the second source of NOx to occurs as a result of high temperature oxidation of atmospheric nitrogen. Studies generally support the conclusion that the majority (75 - 80$) of • the total NOx emitted from refuse firing is the result of fuel nitrogen oxidation. A - 1 • There are a variety of ways to reduce NOx emissions at resource recovery facilities. They include: Source separation; combustion modification; and flue gas controls. Present information indicates that combustion modifications are the primary means of reducing NOx emissions. Flue gas controls have yet to be demonstrated to be an effective means of NOx reductions. And the only effective means of NOx reduction by source separation is by the overall reduction of the material that is processed through the system. Staged combustion and low excess air techniques can reduce the quantity of organic bound volatile fuel nitrogen that is oxidized to nitric oxide. The techniques are particularly effective in mass refuse burning facilities and can reduce NOx emissions by up to 35$. 2. Sulfur Dioxide and Hydrogen Chloride: Sulfur Dioxide (SO ) is formed by the oxidation of sulfur in the fuel. 2 In the atmosphere, S02 is oxidized to sulfur trioxide (SO ) which combines the water droplets in the air to 3 form sulfuric acid, which is one of the causes of acid • rain. A - 2 • Hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen flouride (HF) are formed by chlorine and fluorine in the fuel. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polyurethane are among the major sources of chlorine. A majority of the sulfur, chlorine and fluorine found in refuse is chemically bound to other compounds. Consequently, the type of sulfur, chlorine, and fluorines released from the furnace will be strongly dependent upon the presence of other gaseous compounds, combustion temperatures, and environmental conditions in the furnace. Emissions of SO and other acid gases can best be controlled at 2 resource recovery facilities through the use of flue gas controls. Some reductions in fuel chlorine, which in turn reduce HCL emissions are achieveable through source separation techniques. Based on previous tests, either wet or dry scrubbing appears to be the best means of reducing SO emissions to below 30 ppm. (12$ 2 CO ) Because of the problems of disposal of scrubbing 2 liquids, dry scrubbing is felt to be the best means of control of SO at this type of plant. The dry scrubbing 2 processes use alkaline sorbents, such as sodium carbonate, lime, or trona. In general, sodium carbonate and trona solution have produced a higher level of SO 2 and HCL control than the use of lime slurries injected • at the same conditions. In order to achieve an 85 to 90$ reduction of SO and 90 to 98$ reduction of HCL and 2 A - 3 u acid gasses, dry scrubbers must be designed with sufficient residence time in the reaction chamber to insure evaporation of the atomized slurry to a dry powder. Use of fabric filter systems, such as bag houses, as a second stage of the dry scrubbing process, can contribute up to 16% of the total removal efficiency at the same time. Source separation of refuse, such as removal of plastics and other polyvinyl chloride based products, can also offer reductions in total mass emissions, however, the practicality of source separation of these • plastics has not been demonstrated and costs are E uncertain at this time. SO concentrations are lowest in refractory wall mass 2 burning units, especially the modular incinerators, and higher in the water wall mass burning units. See Table A-1. This also true of HCL emissions, which are lower for refractory wall than they are for a water wall type unit. A - 4 TABLE A-1 Conversion of Refuse -Fuel Sulfur to SO2 at Refuse -Fired Facilities Type of Type of Sulfur in Fuel Feed Flue Gas Measured Conversion of Facility Furnace Fuel Fuel Rate Flgw late SO2 Fuel Sulfur i wt. dry kg/hr 103 m /hr (ppmv dry) to SO2 (lb/hr) (10 scf/hr) Hempstead Spreader wet RDF 0.37 36,000 350 270 55,E Stoker (80,000) (12,360) b Nashville Mass- MSW 0.20 13,700 91 v Burning (30,180) (3,213) 38 10% Waterwa l l Braintree Mass- MSW 0.35 4,500 34 50 9% Burning (9,900) (1,200) Waterwall Proposed Modular MSW 0.30 3,620 30 8% (Est.) (8,000) (est.) (est.) a Data from Environmental Assessment of a Waste -To -Energy Process: RDF Electric Power Boiler (Hempstead), MRI, Draft, February 1980. b Data from "Nashville Incinerator Performance Tests", Bozeka, Carl, in Proceedings of the 1976 National Waste Processing Conference (ASME), May 23-26, 1976, Boston, Mass., pgs. 215-227. C Data from Environmental Assessment of a Waste -To -Ener Process: Braintree Municipal Incinerator, MRI, EPA -600/780-149, August 19130. d Consumat 50 Ton/Day Modular Units. 3. Particulate Matter Control: Combustion of municipal solid waste generates a significant quantity of particulate matter. Particulate matter is emitted as a result of incomplete combustion of fuel, as well as entrainment of noncombustibles in the flue gas stream. Particulate matter may exit as either solids or aerosols. The size of these particles can range from less than 0.1 microns to more than 500 microns. The size and quantity of particles emitted from municipal solid waste combustion depends on such factors as residence times, temperature, oxidizing/reducing conditions of the furnace, and the trace chemistry of • the particulates and fuel. Long residence times allows for more complete burning of the organic particles, with a commensurate decrease in particle size. KI Particulate that may be released during combustion, primarially, are less that 10 microns in diameter, and much of it less than 2 microns. Particles of less than 10 microns in diameter represent the inhalable fraction of particulate matter emissions. Theory has shown that particulate of less than 2 microns can be inhaled deeply into the lungs. A - 6 u At present there is considerable discussion as to a level of particulate emission control. Present N.Y.S. SEQRA requirements have a limit of 0.03 grains per dry standard cubic foot at 12% CO This calculates to a 2 98.9% removal efficiency. A limit of 0.02 gr/dscf represents a 99.3% removal efficiency and a limit of 0.01 gr/dscf corresponds to a removal efficiency of approximately 99.7%. The emission limit recommended for California is 0.01 grains per dry standard cubic foot. In addition, California also includes an emission limit of 0.008 gr/dscf for particles of less than 2 microns in size. These emissions limits are roughly equivalent to • an oil fire facility or a well controlled coal fired industrial boiler. In order to achieve this level of removal very high efficient particulate control devices are required. Control technology employing fabric filters appear to offer the best means of meeting this level of emissions. It has been demonstrated that fabric filter systems can achieve the .01 gr/dscf as well as the .008 grains per dcsf for the particles smaller than 2 microns. Fabric filters are inherently more efficient in capturing fine particles than other particulate control systems. Fabric filters also are not as sensitive to changes in flue gas volumes, are not as susceptible to small excursions of temperature as • A - 7 • other types of percipitators. Dry scrubbing systems installed upstream of fabric filters for control of SO 2 and acid gases materially reduced operational problems associated with fabric filters. 4. Carbon Monoxide and Hydrocarbons: Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Hydrocarbons (THC) are products of incomplete oxidation of carbon compounds. The source of these carbon compounds at refuse burning facilities can be fuel, prolysis products formed near the fuel bed or in immediate combustion products. Incomplete combusition can be caused by a number of factors including, fuel 0 rich conditions and low combustion temperatures. These conditions can be produced at a refuse burning facility by introduction of overly wet or large loads of refuse in the furnace, supression of combustion by very high overfire air rates, or inadequate supply of combustion air. As mentioned earlier for SO and acid gas 2 emissions, the refractory wall incinerator units have a lower emission rate than do the water wall units. it is important to maintain relatively low CO and HC emissions at resource recovery facilities. Low levels of these pollutants are a good indications of high combustion efficiency and a high level of these pollutants may indicate increased levels of organic • emissions as well. A - 8 i Combustion modifications used for NOx control, such as staged combustion or low excess air can, if improperly applied, reduce combustion efficiency, and increase emissions of both CO and HC. Proper application of combustion modification will insure both low NOx operation and minimize CO and HC emissions. The best control of CO and HC includes introduction of enough overfire air to provide good mixing in the combustion unit. This, combined with temperature residence time, will minimize CO and HC emissions to less than 10 ppm corrected to 12% CO 2 5. Metals: Metallic compounds that can be included in the emissions of refuse incinerators include compounds of the following elements: Antimony, arsenic, belyllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, manganese, molybdenum, nickle, lead, selenium, tin, banadium, and zinc.` The probability of whether a metal substance will be emitted from combustion process as a vapor or on the surface of fine particles depends on its physical properties, and on enrichment mechanisms. For example, fly ash collected in areas of cool flue gas temperatures show significantly higher metal concentrations than fly ash collected in hot flue gas • temperatures. The higher temperatures increase the A - 9 • amount of metals that can be vaporized within the incinerator unit. These vaporized metals tend to condense or absorb on small fly ash particles especially in the 2 to 10 micron range. However, to determin the full extent of metal emission rates of fly ash it is necessary to examine the contribution of metals from sub -micron size particles, as metals condense or can be absorbed preferentially on fine fly ash particles as well. Effective control of metallic compounds requires consistant and efficient removal of fine fly ash • particles. Therefore, properly designed and operated fabic filter systems are the best method for removal of fine and particular sub -micron fly ash. Removal efficiencies of fine fly ashes of these systems can be expected to be in the range of 99%. In addition, the reduction of the temperature of flue gas stream to below 300"F. offers a further reduction of volatile metallic compounds, except mercury or mercuric compounds. A - 10 L-A 6. Trace Organic Compounds: Organic compounds are emitted from resource recovery facilities in both gaseous and particulate states. In appears that enrichment is occurring with organic compounds as well as the metals in metallic compounds. The organic compounds of most concern are: Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins or commonly known as "dioxins" called (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs). PDSSs and PCDFs exist as components of raw fuel, in this case municipal refuse. Like metal enrichment or fly ash, organic compound enrichment is controlled by particle size, number of particles, and flue gas temperature and iparticle composition. Inefficient combustion and low maintenance efforts are probably the main contributors to high organic compound emission rates. Residential and small institutional oil fired heating systems have relatively high organic emissions because of their generally inefficient combustion. See Table A.3 A - 11 0 TABLE A.2 TRACE ORCANIC EMISSION FACTORS vg/GJ AS FIRED COMPOUND OIL FIRED RESIDENTIAL .03 - 2 M BTU/Hr. MODULAR INCINEATOR 290 M BTU/Hr. FA 3,500 226 • Benzo -a -pyrene BaP 185 77 Benzo -e -pyrene BeP -- 210 Benzo -a -anthracene BaA 26 330 Coroene Cor 2,000 17 0 A - 12 • Organic compounds decompose at exposure to high temperatures. The thermal stability (resistance decomposition) of an organic compound is dependent on its composition and its structure. Figure A.1 illustrates the thermal destruction profiles of five organic compounds. And, Figure A.2 shows the destruction profiles for various PCB's. Tests conducted in 1965 with Dow Research indicated 99.95% destruction efficiency of dioxin at temperatures of 1470' F. Both high temperature and duration of exposure are prerequisits for destruction efficiency of • organic compounds. Therefore, modular refractory wall units with their 99% combustion efficiency, operating temperatures of 1800° F., and a flue gas residence time of 1.0 seconds have a high rate of destruction of organic chemicals including dioxins. There is also a collation of the destruction of dioxins, CO and THC, based on temperature as shown in Figure 4.3. However, during upset conditions or improper operation of the incinerators, quantity of organic compounds still may be formed and released. Therefore, it is important to have a good control of fine particulate matter to provide insurance against any release of • organic compounds that are absorbed onto particulates. A - 13 0 u 100 u z z FIGURE A.1 Thermal destruction Profiles for Selected Organic Compounds 0 SO 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 tXPOSUHE TLMPERATURE °C Source: Duvall, D.S.. and Nubey, W.A., EPA, laboratory Evaluation of H, h -Term ernture Destruction of Polychlorinated Bi hens and kelaced�o-6 ou ds, kepurt—No. 06/2- -T2b. December 1977. A - 14 • 0 100 Z_ Z 10 H Z . W U �c W 96 1.0 w f 0.1 L -,A LJ FIGURE A.2 Thermal Destruction Profiles for 9arious PCBs DECACMLOROMPMENYL - 2. 5. 20. 4'. 5' PENTACMLOROBIPMENYL 2. S. Z'. 5' TETRACMLOROPIPMENYL biPhLNYL n . 1 .0 = o.l SEC. 0 ..,�0. 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 EXPOSURE TEMPERATURE. C Source: Duvall, U.S., and kuuey. W.A., EPA, laboratory Evdludtion of hi h -Temp erdture Ue-struttiun of Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Ke ated omkounds, Rrpor[ No. b— /2 , Wcem6er 1977.-- A - 15 7"oW1v CL. Eat COPY Inc. Village of Greenport and Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York RECEIVED !UN A 1981 Tom Cwk Southold' Section 201 Wastewater Facility Plan C-36 -1120 Alternatives Evaluation and Environmental Assessment Report PRELIMINARY ONLY (ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ONLY) February 1981 2UHolzmachor, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. Consulting Engineers. Planners and Environmental Scientists Melville, N.Y. Farmingdale, N.Y. Riverhead. N.Y. '. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 3.0 FUTURE ENVIRONMENT OF THE PLANNING AREA WITHOUT THE PROJECT The future environment of the planning area without this ' project or some other plan would be the "No Action" alternative. the tanks provide No Action does not provide for more advance treatment or dis- and suspended posal methods to keep pace with the projected population growths Imhoff tanks form- in the study area, nor does it correct, modify or improve waste- digestion. The ' water management practices now in use. The following is a de- scription of the existing practices and their probable social and natural environmental effects if continued without the imple- mentation of a wastewater management and facility plan: ' 3.1 SUB -REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL (GREENPORT SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT) ' 3.1.1 Existing Situation and Future Continuation ' The existing Inc. Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment facility would continue to handle domestic wastewater from the ' existing sanitary collection system, as outlined in Figure 3.1. The Greenport plant is a secondary treatment plant utilizing an ' aerated lagoon system for the biological oxidation of suspended ' solids and dissolved organic material in the wastewater. Comminuted wastewater from the central pump station enters ' the Imhoff tanks, where the upper portion of the tanks provide a period of quiescence to permit the settleable and suspended ' solids to settle to the lower portion of the Imhoff tanks form- ing primary sludge which undergoes anaerobic digestion. The ' scum floats to the surface. Primary effluent from the Imhoff 1 3.1 D 11 FIGURE 3.1 33 yo l )East Mari ,LONG /SLAlj1,QI�, N r Ir ) �,34 �! 66 31SOIIIKCI u ! dt I ( \ u 30 OA j Is69 I \ 39 Inlet'Plti \Stirling, �:,� . PUMP STATION No . 4 . ILrem IT CENTRAL PUMP STATION 37 �;! ,�-✓�. aQ 4 - Eioly'i Wt. y .• St AV' PUMP 27 /� am Ce-STATIONt�No . 3 x,02 ♦ 1 a• )� ' �.,,,�. •fit yj / Ps er Rock i l!i� i ;�) '3e @e Youngs Pt } o 2 M0Urf='1 x�tFI01TS I r �I '�\ ( NAL PUMP STATION>pDSew4,1 p 22 sal �tlw� Ndt� Piles,� A �'r i rd NURSIIJ% , �, y; n (' ).. i ♦\ PO y � 1. "..� � - Wiz= m 1l�ttl! 1 I \ sW_ �z lug 1 •IE a� � * / 3/ ✓ � ^ pheater T Su bst+t to V 4. 'Arttbl wa9ue. • a ,i�; br« ANF, • r 4 :_a .� y F,p � s . R000 PUMP so ,,• i ��o r STATION No . 2 PUMP STATION' M II�`4f. 33E;.� b� Dwin rdl. No.l p �,. `?>�� '.`_. �• �� rGJS ie p1 f'Y l nom, i 90 / t 10 a h �13Del riu 1 30 / Ha r•bo r 95 )� y -�'1 hequit 1 achi t 4 y Ay YaI Club �F Iles y0 j 90 '.l ldr�' ) 6 )t• X"v � v t I 1 � ' ar III �� ,�.,.'n''r. 1. _ t • .. t . LOCATION MAP �A��- I"=�:ood' TOWN OF SOUTHOLD — INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. /H2 M C.ORP. MELVILLE, FARMINGDAIE, N.Y. N,Y. I CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTON. N.J. 3.2 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. tanks is distributed to the aerated lagoons. Within these lagoons an environment is created to promote growth of micro- ' organisms which feed upon, and reduce the amount of organic matter in the wastewater. Air is supplied to the flow by float- ing mechanical aerators, which satisfies the oxygen requirements for biological life and maintains solids in suspension. Follow- ing the detention period in the lagoons, the stabilized effluent flows to the final settling tank where further settling of solids is obtained. The final effluent is then chlorinated, metered ' and flows to the wet well of the effluent pumps which discharge the flow to the Long Island Sound. Sludge from the final settling tank is intermittently pumped to the Imhoff tanks where it settles with the primary sludge in the lower compartments of the tanks to undergo anaerobic digestion. Digested sludge flows by gravity to the sludge drying beds and from here, the dried sludge is trucked to the Village landfill for ultimate disposal. t3.1.2 Social Impacts Primary social impacts resulting from the continuation of ' the existing sewage treatment plant in Greenport are related to public health and safety considerations. As a conservative ap- proach, the lack of a well-maintained and operated sewage treat•- ' ment system could expose the population to potential health risks. It can not be stated definitively, however, that the health risks ' from the No Action alternative would be any more significant than that of the proposed project. 1 3.3 ', HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. velopment due to the remote location of the facility and the rural nature of the study area. ' It is not expected that the continuation of the existing treatment plant will cause significant social dislocations or ' will adversely affect agricultural land. Sewage outfall to the ' Sound, however, has a negative impact of loss of recreational/ open space and fisheries opportunities in the immediate vicinity ' of the discharge area. Positive long term impacts as a result of the facility in-- clude increased property values for homes, greater supply of ' reasonably priced housing, and new commercial/industrial de- velopment. However, as the facility ages, unless operated and ' maintained properly, it can affect treatment levels and relia- bility. 1 3.4 Secondary social effects are the indirect or induced changes resulting from sub -regional wastewater treatment practices and disposal. These include changes in population, economic growth, land use, level of services, and development patterns. The existing sewage treatment plant in Greenport can meet ' projected effluent flows for the Village. The facility was de- signed to serve a population equivalent to 5,000 (winter and ' summer). Presently operating at 50 percent of design capacity (1978) and with a projected permanent population in 2005 of ' 2,970 for the Inc. Village of Greenport, there is adequate ex- cess capacity to allow for future population increases. It is ' not expected that the facility will induce unwanted urban de- velopment due to the remote location of the facility and the rural nature of the study area. ' It is not expected that the continuation of the existing treatment plant will cause significant social dislocations or ' will adversely affect agricultural land. Sewage outfall to the ' Sound, however, has a negative impact of loss of recreational/ open space and fisheries opportunities in the immediate vicinity ' of the discharge area. Positive long term impacts as a result of the facility in-- clude increased property values for homes, greater supply of ' reasonably priced housing, and new commercial/industrial de- velopment. However, as the facility ages, unless operated and ' maintained properly, it can affect treatment levels and relia- bility. 1 3.4 '. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' 3.1.3 Natural Environmental Impacts The effects of the No Action alternative will impact the natural environment through losses in both quantity and quality of potable drinking waters, disturbance of groundwater flows ' into fresh and tidal wetlands, and continued input of suspended solids (SS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), nutrients, and ' trace metals/chlorine to Long Island Sound. ' 3.1.3.1 Impacts to Groundwater The North Fork is naturally divided by salt water ponds, marshes and inlets into four fairly distinct hydrogeologic units (see Figure 3.2). Greenport's sanitary collection system lies ' over part of a relatively small unit, which will be referred to tas the Greenport aquifer, located between Hashamomuck and Dam fluctuations from the loss of ground- Ponds. When the collection system/S.T.P. became operational in Therefore, January 1940, recharge of wastewaters to the Greenport aquifer stabilized. continuation from on-site, of the existing private disposal systems within the sewered areas sewage treatment plant and sanitary collection system will cause little further change in groundwater ceased. This action probably caused a decrease in average ground- water levels and some upward and landward movement of the salt water -fresh water interface in this hydrogeologic unit. Since ' 1940, there has been no major expansion of the sanitary collec- 1 1 3.5 tion system and groundwater fluctuations from the loss of ground- Therefore, water resources have already stabilized. continuation ' of the existing sub -regional sewage treatment plant and sanitary collection system will cause little further change in groundwater levels. 1 1 3.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -EIGURE U. GREENPORT SEWER DISTRICT = ORIENT �sO�r UNIT STO N O L� IF L D GREENPORT AND SCOVENGER 0 MIASTE DISPOSA -� SITE �, ,..•�� HOG NECK UNIT 1 � I O C, r — WESTERN SOUTHOLD j UNIT o� �o BOUNDARIES OF HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS IN SOUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY REF: HOLZMACHER McLENDON 8 MURRELL P.C. 1978 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. /H2 M C.ORP. MELVILLE, N.Y. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS FARMINGDALE, N.Y. NEWTON, N.J. ' 3.6 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 1 ' Construction of the sanitary collection system probably positively impacted groundwater quality in the Greenport aqui- fer by decreasing the number of private, on-site disposal sys- tems and thereby reducing the input of nitrates to groundwater. ' However, a large part of this aquifer's population, continue to ' utilize on-site disposal systems. Since the use of fertilizers throughout Southold has increased since 1940, construction of ' the sanitary collection system temporarily decreased, but did not eliminate, input of nitrates to the Greenport aquifer. No ' Action will, therefore, result in continued deterioration of ' water quality in this hydrogeologic unit. Eventually, its water quality will become unsuitable for human consumption, and expen- sive measures for pretreatment or transport of water from out. - public water supply. ' A further groundwater contamination impact results from ultimate sludge disposal at what is essentially a landfill at ' the Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant. This landfill is unlined ' and, since sludge will often contain significant concentrations of metals (i.e., cadmium) and nutrients, metal and nutrient con- taminated leachate from this sludge will flow directly into the underlying aquifer. From the landfill, the leachate plume then ' follows the direction of groundwater flow toward Shelter Island. ' To keep the leachate impact in perspective, it is important to note that nutrient and metal contaminants would be present in ' wastewater, whether or not it received secondary treatment. This treatment removes some nutrients, but concentrates metal 1 3.7 ', HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. contaminants in the sludge. Ultimate disposal in a small area concentrates the impact. No Action would result in continued leaching of contaminants from sludge already landfilled, and additional leaching from sludge disposed of through the year ' 2005. C n 3.1.3.2 Impacts to Natural Ecosystems When the sanitary collection district started operation, natural ecosystems in Southold were primarily impacted by dis- posal of effluent to Long Island Sound and probably secondarily impacted by decreased input of fresh water to wetlands. From 1940 to 1976, the plant included only primary treatment which removes only 25 to 40 percent of five-day BOD, very little of the suspended solids and few nutrients (i.e., nitrates and phos- phates). This effluent most probably severely impacted natural proximate to the outfall through greatly increased nutrient in- put (causing excessive primary production), oxygen depletion :in the water column due to increased BOD, and introduction of metals and chlorine which causes the formation of environmentally damag- ing compounds (i.e., chloramines). Since 1976, this facility has been operating as a secondary treatment plant. While it consistently has not met its discharge permit requirements of 85 percent SS and BOD removal, the efflu- ent is much less environmentally damaging than the primary efflu- ent previously discharged. Therefore, No Action will result in primary impacts to natural ecosystems proximate to the outfall which are less severe than those prior to 1976, but which do not 3.8 1 !l 11 U C HOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. / HYM CORP. meet acceptable impact levels implied by SPDES permit require- ments. Wetlands were probably secondarily impacted by the Green. - port STP through loss of groundwater resources and by decreasing groundwater quality. Loss of groundwater resources most probably resulted in reduced input of fresh waters to fresh and tidal wet- lands with a proportionate decrease in their value. However, Greenport STP has been operating for 40 years, and this impact. has, therefore, already occurred. Decreasing groundwater quality may have more subtly impacted wetlands by introducing small amounts of nutrients (i.e., nitrates), and environmentally damag- ing to these environments. No Action will, therefore, result in increased secondary impacts to wetlands only through decreases in groundwater quality. 3.2 ON-SITE SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL 3.2.1 Existing Situation and Future Continuation The Inc. Village of Greenport sewer system encompasses only a limited area, leaving large areas within the Town of Southold without a sewage collection and treatment system. These areas primarily rely on subsurface disposal systems, such as septic tanks and leaching pools, cesspools or tile fields, for sanitary► waste disposal. All of this waste ultimately finds its way into the Glacial aquifer. Soil conditions and depth to groundwater determine the leach- ing system that will be utilized. 3.9 ' HOLZMACHER, MCLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. I �I L _J In all cases, unsuitable soils must be removed and replaced with a 3 -foot clean sand and gravel collar around the leaching pools to a depth of at least 6 -feet into a virgin strata of typi- cal Long Island sand and gravel. ' Composite soil profiles for the study area indicate that the 1 subsoil in the various communities is suitable for septic tank leaching pool systems (sand and gravel strata for leaching pools). ' It should be noted that for some areas, subsoil modifications were required where loam and large amounts of clay were encountered. ' A requirement of the Bureau of Environmental Health Services is that septic tanks be cleaned at least once per year. However, ' there are no records available which indicate the frequency of ' cleaning from each home or any septic tank/leaching pools failure within the planning area. 3.2.2 Social Impacts The primary impacts of continued on-site sewage disposal sys- tems are related to public health considerations. As the popula- of nitrogen. Without a viable septic tank management plan, problems could ' go unnoticed and unmitigated until they resulted in adversely impacting ground and/or surface waters. Degradation of these 1 3.10 tion density increases, the number of septic systems and private wells will increase proportionately. As these systems age and if ' they are not properly maintained and operated, there will be an increased number of system failures, thus increasing the possi-- bility of contaminating potable water supplies from the leaching of nitrogen. Without a viable septic tank management plan, problems could ' go unnoticed and unmitigated until they resulted in adversely impacting ground and/or surface waters. Degradation of these 1 3.10 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / HxM CORP. i resources would have an ensuing adverse irapact on public health. Improperly functioning septic systems may also be considered a nuisance to the community primarily from the generation of un- desirable odors. Land use may be impacted as optimum use may ' not be gained because of the presence of soils which are un- suited for subsurface septic systems. This is particularly true of areas of higher elevation with a more sparse covering of soil or in areas with a high water table or poor soil permeability. Secondary social impacts of on-site sewage disposal systems include urban sprawl and its numerous effects, such as, increased water consumption, impingement on open space and recreation and ' prime agricultural land. Although with the No Action, there is ' less development pressures on the land than with sewering or non- structural alternatives, increased growth is at a slower rate and ' tends to be more leap frog. There is less in -fill around es- tablished centers of activities due to availability of cheaper land on the fringes. This provides for a greater availability of moderately priced housing and constitutes a positive social impact. ' 3.2.3 Natural Environmental Impacts 3.2.3.1 Impacts to Groundwater ' Cesspools, septic tanks and leaching fields are sources of groundwater recharge and contamination within the study area. In on-site disposal systems, bacterial action digests the solid material and the liquid effluent then leaches to and recharges groundwater aquifers. Theoretically, filtration by earth material ' 3.11 1. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. J provides additional treatment so that the liquid arrives at the groundwater table with a relatively low solids concentration. ' However, many constituents dissolved in the effluent are intro- duced to groundwater. Those which present the greatest threat to groundwater quality are excessive concentrations of nitrogen, ' organic chemicals, metals, and to a lesser extent, viruses. No Action, or continued use of on-site disposal systems without modifications or a management program, will have the ' positive impact of continued recharge of aquifers by their ef- fluent. However, this will also result in further deterioration of the quality of Southold's aquifers, eventually causing them to become unfit for human consumption. Prohibitively expensive ' pretreatment or transport from outside the study area would ' then be required for public water supply. 3.2.3.2 Impacts to Natural Ecosystems ' Wetlands and surface waters would be secondarily impacted by decreasing groundwater quality, which would introduce small amounts of nutrients and possibly toxic metals or organic com- pounds into their nutrient cycles. Additionally, environmental. ' conditions near wetlands and surface waters usually include soils with poor drainage characteristics and high water tables,, which are two very important factors in failures of on-site di:a- ' posal systems. Therefore, wetlands and surface waters would also be expected to sustain rare, but significant, localized impacts due to failure overflows into them from septic tank systems. 1 3.12 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 1 ' 3.3 ULTIMATE DISPOSAL OF SCAVENGER WASTE 3.3.1 Existing Situation and Future Continuation ' Scavenger wastes are the liquid pumpings of cesspool and septic tank leaching systems. ' Presently, septic wastes from non-sewered areas are dis- posed to open leaching beds at the Southold landfill in Cutchogue. The existing Southold septic waste disposal site is part of the ' Southold Solid Waste Disposal Facility (sanitary landfill) lo- cated in the community of Cutchogue on North Road (County Road 27) between Cox Lane and Depot Lane. The facility is situated in a rural industrially zoned area. The location is shown on ' Figure 4.10. ' Scavenger waste is discharged into either of two (2) un- covered, unlined, 100 feet by 75 feet leaching lagoons located ' in the northwest corner of the Southold landfill site. Under the No Action alternative, septic wastes would con- tinue to be disposed into leaching beds. No alternative treat-- ' via leaching beds and will not issue Southold a SPDES permit to continue this practice. If the Town continues to discharge with- out a SPDES permit, most likely NYSDEC will take legal action against the Town, impose monetary fines and imprison Town officials. 1 3.13 ment and disposal system of scavenger waste would be implemented. 3.3.2 Social Impacts The No Action alternative for scavenger waste treatment and disposal is not a viable alternative, since it will not be legally ' permitted. NYSDEC has called for cessation of existing disposal ' via leaching beds and will not issue Southold a SPDES permit to continue this practice. If the Town continues to discharge with- out a SPDES permit, most likely NYSDEC will take legal action against the Town, impose monetary fines and imprison Town officials. 1 3.13 IHOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. The No Action alternative is therefore found to be non-viable, since it will not meet the needs of the study area to provide ' for an adequate treatment and disposal method for scavenger waste. 3.3.3 Natural Environmental Impacts 3.3.3.1 Impacts to Groundwater Although the present open lagoon method of scavenger waste ' disposal is the least expensive, it creates an unacceptable pri- mary environmental impact by contaminating groundwater in Southold's ' westerly and largest hydrogeologic unit (see Figure 3.2, previously shown). Leachate from the lagoon must percolate through 26 feet ' of soils to reach groundwater. While this process effectively re- moves suspended solids and reduces BOD from leachate, many dis-, solved contaminants (i.e., metals and nutrients) remain and enter ' the groundwater with leachate from the landfill. To keep this impact in perspective, this volume of wastewater and its contarai- ' nants are normally spread throughout Southold in on-site disposal systems. Present scavenger waste disposal methods simply concen- trate the impact. Since scavenger waste volumes are expected •to ' increase with population, the No Action alternative will increase the input of contaminants to the groundwater and the amount of ' groundwater affected as the contamination spreads through the ' aquifer in the direction of groundwater flow. 3.3.3.2 Impacts on Natural Ecosystems The present scavenger waste disposal method has thus far had a direct impact on the groundwater. When the leachate plume reaches 1 3.14 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' wetlands or surface waters, it will then also have a primary impact on these areas, as described in Section 3.2.3.2. 3.4 AGRICULTURAL AND HOUSEHOLD FERTILIZATION PRACTICES ' 3.4.1 Existing Situation and Future Continuation ' Fertilizers are applied mainly to residential and agri- cultural properties in the study area. As part of the 208 study ' for the Nassau -Suffolk region, it was determined that approxi- mately 25 percent of the nitrogen in fertilizers applied to ' agricultural land and approximately 60 percent of fertilizers applied to house turf leached to the groundwater. These fertili- zation practices have resulted in a conservatively estimated annual nitrogen loading of 578,000 pounds. Since nitrogen load- ing from on-site disposal systems is approximately 90,000 pounds per annum, fertilizers are the most significant source of nitro- gen groundwater contamination in Southold. Under the No Action alternative, current fertilization practices would be continued without alternatives to reduce the nitrate input to the ground• - water. ' 3.4.2 Social Impacts Primary social impacts related to continued use of ferti- lizers on residential and agricultural land include land use ' and health considerations. Fertilizers applied to household lawns will become a more important source of nitrogen groundwater pollution in the future. 1 3.15 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. Presently, there are approximately 2,200 acres of turf within the Township of Southold. Land use projections estimate that in 1995, there will be approximately 8,180 acres of turf. The in- crease in developed residential acreage emanates from existing ' vacant land and agricultural land converted to residential land use. This change will quadruple the leaching potential unless fertilizing characteristics practices are modified. If fertili•- ' zation practices do not change, a net nitrogen increase of 20 percent will leach into the groundwater over the next ten years. ' In addition, this problem becomes more serious a threat where there is no public water supply as in the case with the study area. The No Action alternative would lead to further ' nitrate/nitrite contamination of all four hydrogeologic units in Southold (see Figure 3-2) until they become too contaminated ' for human consumption. Once this occurs, these groundwater re-- i �I sources will be unusable for potable purposes for several gener- ations, or expensive pretreatment methods would have to be under- taken for providing public water supply. Another primary impact of increased fertilization practices is increased water consumption and its effect on the water table and impingement on open space and recreation. Fertilization practices will not have any significant secon- dary social impacts such as shifts in population or excessive development in the study area. However, fertilizers do allow for agriculturally working marginal soil quality areas and pro- vide for better lawn appearance in these areas. In the long 3.16 u 1 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. term, it will have a beneficial effect of preserving prime farm- land as residential development spreads to marginal agricultural land use areas. It may affect negatively on preserving areas for open space and greenbelt areas, since it allows for greater urban sprawl. 3.4.3 Natural Environmental Impacts Natural ecosystems would be affected by current fertilizer application techniques. Primary impacts to Southold's ecosystems are due to direct runoff of precipitation from fertilized areas to wetlands and surface waters. This runoff will have a high nitrate concentration, which will cause excessive primary pro- duction in the recipient wetland. Secondary impacts will re- sult from the input of small quantities of nitrates to Southold's wetlands and surface waters from nitrate -contaminated groundwater 1 flows. 1 n The No Action alternative will increase the occurrence of primary and secondary wetland disturbance in Southold. 3.17 i HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 1 4.28 - 1 4.1.4 Environmental Assessment ' The non-structural alternatives as described in Section ' 4.1.3 would provide inexpensive solutions to some of the waste- water management problems in the study area. It is expected ' that they will have a significant beneficial impact on reducing current sources of groundwater/surface water pollution and each ' are outlined below. ' A. Optimization of Existing Greenport Sewage Treatment Facility ' 1. Social Impacts - Methods to optimize the efficiency and operation of the Greenport STP will have positive primary ' social impacts and will provide a large measure of safety for public health. Adequate performance can only be accomplished if the facility is well maintained and operated properly. This reduces the risk of system upsets and health hazards associated with inefficient operations. Surface water disposal into the Sound will continue to have a minor secondary effect on recre- ational (swimming) and fishing opportunities. In the vicinity of the outfall area, these activities will be prohibited. The ' loss of this area does not present a significant adverse impact. 2. Natural Environmental Impacts - The Inc. Village ' Sewage Treatment Plant is of Greenport only marginally meeting ' its SPDES permit effluent limitations. This effluent is dis- charged into Long Island Sound north of Greenport. Upgrading ' of the facility, either through structural changes or through improved management techniques, as discussed in the previous 1 4.28 - 1 IJ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. section, would therefore result in decreased impact on the out- fall area. Specifically, effluent with lower suspended solids and biological oxygen demand would be discharged to Long Island. Sound, and the attendant impact on benthic organisms would there- by be lessened. Impact to groundwater through improved sludge handling methods will be discussed in Section 4.3.12. B. Land Use Controls Land use control may be practiced to prevent the de- velopment of areas that have soil, slope or other limitations ' that render them unsuitable for subsurface septic systems. Under this alternative, legislation would be passed restricting land use in certain areas with the intention of preventing adverse impacts from poorly planned development. 1. Social Impacts - Land use control, if strictly en- forced within the study area, would have several beneficial secondary impacts. This alternative would insure optimum use of land areas based on land capabilities and suitability, since it ' prohibits growth in areas unsuitable for development. Under this alternative, a high quality of life is maintained, the rural ' character of the study area is preserved and property values are increased. Other possible positive impacts of a secondary nature are the preservation of open space, farmland, wetlands, woodlands and aboriginal sites resulting from restricted development. In addition, land use controls inhibit urban sprawl and thus reduce the cost of providing public services since service districts are consolidated. This alternative does not present any significant 1 4.28 - 2 ' . HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 1 primary impacts. Depending on the number of unsuitable areas, ' this solution may have an adverse secondary effect on enomomic ' growth if there is not sufficient land available to develop all types of land uses. ' 2. Natural Environmental Impacts - Zoning ordinances limiting development (or requiring additional sewage treatment ' capabilities for high-density residential developments) will ' essentially maintain status quo unless combined with other al- ternatives for reducing existing negative impacts. ' C. Fertilizer Controls Fertilizers have been shown to contribute to nitrogen ' pollution in the groundwater. Therefore, controlling and reduc- ing the amount of fertilizers applied to the land will directly reduce the amount of nitrogen that leaches into the groundwater. ' 1. Social Impacts - Reduced nitrogen input to the groundwater through fertilizer control would have a positive primary social effect on public health. This alternative would ' reduce nitrate contamination of the groundwater aquifer and thus decrease the associated public health risks. 2. Natural Environmental Impacts - The large amounts of fertilizer applied to agricultural lands and lawns in the study area are the primary source both of groundwater contami- nation by nitrates and of wetland impact through highly enriched runoff. Implementation of fertilizer controls through split agricultural applications and through proper lawn maintenance ' 4.28 - 3 I. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP, 1 ' and composting of clippings will decrease nitrate contamination by a significant percentage. ' D. Water Supply Management Plan Provisions for a water supply management plan include ' a monitoring program to detect changes in the quality of ground- water and surface water, constraints on irrigation practices, controlled pumping and water conservation. The objective of a ' water supply management plan in the study area is to limit the amount of contaminants that can enter a public water supply. ' 1. Social Impacts - Aspects of this plan, such as ' controlling the amount of water pumped and consumed, will have a positive secondary impact of conserving and preserving ground- water resources. This ultimately allows for sustaining existing population and for future population increases and economic ' growth in the study area. This non-structural alternative does ' not present any adverse social impacts. 2. Natural Environmental Impacts ' a. Groundwater/Surface Water Monitoring Program - This program would utilize existing observation wells from on- going groundwater monitoring. Thus, secondary construction im- pacts from well installation would be avoided. In areas where ' it is found necessary to install new wells (i.e., areas where I chloride concentrations are to be monitored), the installation of cluster wells for vertical sampling would reduce construction impacts. 1 4.28 - 4 I. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. r One primary positive impact over the long term is improved groundwater quality, since the prompt implementation of manage- ment plans would prevent further groundwater deterioration. ' b. Irrigation Wells - These wells represent 60% of all groundwater pumpage in the Town of Southold. Only a small ' amount is available for recharge, the remainder undergoing evapo- transpiration. Primary impact is on groundwater quantity and quality; continuous pumping with minimal precipitation and re- charge lowers the water table and permits an inland and upward extension of the fresh/salt water interface. Irrigation moni- toring, including nighttime irrigation to reduce evapotrans- piration losses, would reduce the aquifer loss. 'C. Controlled pumping would mitigate the primary ' groundwater impact of salt water intrusion, as described in b. above. td. Increase Recharge - Recharge of properly treated effluent will not only mitigate the effects of withdrawal from the aquifer, but will also help form a barrier at the fresh/salt ' water interface. 'Thus, salt water intrusion will be halted when recharge occurs in carefully selected areas. ' e. Conservation of water would obviously put less stress on fresh water reserves, but would have to be combined ' with some other method of wastewater treatment to avoid ground- water contamination. 1 4.28 - 5 I. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP. ' E. Septic Tank Management Plan Septic tank management is essentially the only environ- mentally sound, non-structural method of dealing with existing and future on-site septic system problems. Provisions for rou- tine pumping and maintenance for on-site systems would extend the service life of the leaching facility and ensure its continued efficiency. This type of maintenance program allows for early ' identification of areas where problems develop and mitigating measures may then be implemented to abate any adverse impacts. In addition, regulations are recommended to prohibit the use of ' certain chemicals which decrease the effectiveness of on-site systems and have a negative impact on the groundwater aquifers. ' 1. Social Impacts - Implementation of a septic tank management plan will reduce the risk of system failures and ad- verse effects of system overflows. This will have a positive primary impact on public health by reducing groundwater contami- nation. The primary negative impact of this alternative is that ' it is effective only where subsurface conditions are marginal for septic systems, or where older systems are failing. In addition, ' it does not eliminate the problem of system failures and over- flows, but merely reduces the chance of them occurring. It should be noted that since the septage removed from septic systems must ' be treated and disposed, this alternative should be viewed in conjunction with scavenger waste alternatives. These alternatives ' are addressed in Section 4.4. 1 4.28 - 6 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / HZM CORP. ' 2. Natural Environmental Impacts - Even properly oper- ating cesspools, septic tanks and leaching fields introduce con- taminants such as nitrogen, metals and organics to groundwater. Failure of these systems results in secondary impact of overflow ' to, and contamination of, natural ecosystems such as wetlands and surface waters, in addition to a higher degree of groundwater con- tamination. System failures also create health hazards, since ' viruses can enter groundwater along with leachate. Septic tank management would reduce the number of failures and thus positively ' impact the environment by reducing or minimizing the amounts of contaminants reaching both groundwater (primary positive impact) ' and natural ecosystems (secondary positive impact). F. Alternative On -Site Disposal Methods Investigated under this alternative is alternate tech- nology to conventional on-site sewage disposal systems. The ob- jective of this non-structural alternative is to determine if other on-site disposal methods are available to cost-effectively ' treat the wastewater without significant adverse environmental impacts. 'These alternate devices are examined below and dis- cussed individually where they have varying environmental effects. 1. Social Impacts - Alternative on-site disposal methods ' should not be considered viable alternatives for existing non- ' sewered developed areas due to the magnitude of the cost for re- placing present conventional subsurface systems. As older systems ' are being replaced, and new areas are developed, these alternative G 1 4.28 - 7 HOLIMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. disposal methods should be evaluated since, in some cases, they produce better results than conventional septic tank systems. For example, the mound system may be advantageous in areas with severe soil limitations, since it will provide for more efficient percolation and provide greater marginal of safety for preventing system failures. Since SCDHS and town ordinances outlaw privies, this alternative method is considered non-viable. In addition, these types of devices constitute a public nuisance in terms of their unesthetic appearance and potential odors associated with containing wastes above ground. Further, these methods merely transfer the problem from one of wastewater to a scavenger waste problem. Since these methods do not reduce wastes or discharge effluent, this increases wasteloads which must be treated by a scavenger waste facility. All alternative technologies present similar adverse social impacts which are secondary in nature. They allow for development in areas which might otherwise re- main unsuitable for development, due to poor soil permeability and high water table. This puts greater developmental pressures on the land which leads to increased population density and loss of open space/recreation areas, historic sites and prime farm- land. Other secondary adverse social impacts include urban sprawl and its effects on increasing costs of providing other public services, such as schools, fire protection and utilities. In addition, the possibility of instituting education programs and tax credits should be investigated to insure public acceptance. r� 1 J n CII HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. There have been problems in other areas of the country in shift- ing developers and private homeowners from conventional septic systems to utilize some of these alternative on-site disposal systems. 2. Natural Environmental Impacts a. Toilet Facilities pit privies would result in negative impacts, such as groundwater (primary) and secondary surface water con- tamination, health hazards from vector disease transmission, and odor. ' drum and vault privies would remove contami- nants which would otherwise enter groundwater. However, if ' generally used, groundwater recharge would be significantly reduced (by t3 m.g.d.), resulting in the primary groundwater ' impact of lowered water table, increased saline intrusion into ' the underlying aquifers, and lessening of potable water supply. chemical toilets - as above. ' incinerating toilets - as above. waterless composting toilets would introduce contaminants to groundwater only to the extent that they are ' present in shower or sink effluent. This system, being non - water consumptive, would thus have the primary positive impact ' of increasing the amount of potable water available in the aquifer. 1 4.28 - 9 ' +HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / HZM CORP. b. Greywater/Blackwater Separation ' Utilization of a waterless system for disposal of blackwater would reduce both contamination and recharge of ' groundwater, as discussed above. Greywater would still be avail- able for recharge through septic systems, and there would be less negative primary impact on groundwater quantity. Devices for ' greywater reclamation would further increase the potable water supply. ' C. Treatment and Disposal Systems ' Home aerobic treatment units degrade suspended and dissolved organic matter. There would be no decrease, how- ever, in the amount of nitrate entering groundwater and natural 1 4.28 - 10 ecosystems. ' Evapotranspiration (ET) systems would reduce ' groundwater and surface water contamination, but would also limit aquifer recharge. Odors may be a secondary impact problem. ' Mound systems - impacts would be the same as those for cesspools and septic tanks, i.e., potential contamination of ' natural ecosystems. groundwater, surface water and ' d. Modification of Existing Septic Tank Systems This plan would effectively reduce nitrate con- tamination of groundwater, but would have no effect on the amount of metals and organic compounds entering the aquifer(s). 1 4.28 - 10 . HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 4.2.7 Environmental Assessment In addition to the non-structural alternatives, structural alternatives are being considered for regional sewage collection and treatment, in response to public health and environmental ' concerns. This section will evaluate the environmental impacts of the various structural alternatives. A. No Action Alternative (Engineering Alternative A) ' The No Action alternative does not construct or imple- ment any additional facilities to address the problem of ground- water contamination in the study area, but maintains status quo. It is not a viable and recommended alternative, since it does not ' solve current public health problems. Section 3.0 contains a ' more detailed analysis of the planning area without the imple- mentation of this project. ' B. Regional Sewering - Town of Southold This alternative would involve sewering of the entire ' Town of Southold and be capable of serving the existing popu- lation of 20,000 persons. Section 4.2.2 previously described the various components of this alternative. ' 1. Social Impacts Sewering the entire town would present significant ' beneficial long term impacts. These primary impacts relate to ' public health and safety, resulting from this higher level of treatment and reduced groundwater contamination. Town -wide treatment would particularly reduce contamination of rural 4.74 - 1 1 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. private domestic wells. In addition, this alternative would induce full scale development in the study area, having removed potential limitation due to groundwater protection. However, ' this alternative presents secondary negative impacts which are more significant than the positive impacts above. The long term burden of repaying capital costs and on-going operating costs represents a significant impact on a rural economy. The ' secondary impacts of full scale development on public services ' are also considerable, unless limited by statute or other means. Inordinate pressures would be placed on domestic water, electric and gas infrastructure and supply, and on solid waste disposal. Other impacts on water supply may result from discharge of ef- fluent and the reduced recharge to the aquifers, affecting quantities for both public and private supply. These water supply impacts may also be compounded by salt/ fresh water inter- face shifts, as detailed in the following section. Long term negative impacts may also be realized ' on the esthetics of the study area. Increased outfall would impact the recreational value of the area.- Salt water/fresh water interface shifts landward would reduce scenic wetland ' areas and may also reduce recreational fishing, due to lower productivity of the wetland areas. ' Dependent on actual location of the sewers, con- struction would result in extensive disturbance over the con- struction period. Impacts would include noise, vibration and 1 4.74 - 2 HOLZMACHER, MCLENOON and MURRELL P.C. / HZM CORP. charge and volume of Southold's fresh water aquifers, with a consequently lowered water table and landward/upward movement ' of the fresh/salt water interface. This impact to North Fork aquifers and public water supply could be particularly severe ' in Southold's three smaller hydrogeologic units. ' dust. Construction through an extended service area is more was implemented, likely to result in disturbance of historic and archaeological ' resources as well. ' 2. Natural Environmental Impacts - A positive environ- water input as a result of receding groundwater mental impact of this alternative would include reducing annual ' nitrogen loading by 90,000 pounds, and a consequent reduction in fresh water wetlands, this impact would reduce the rate of groundwater contamination. However, this positive ' impact is far outweighed by negative impacts to groundwater ' quantities and natural ecosystems. Since approximately 8 per- cent of Southold's 2005 population will utilize Greenport's STP ment, wildlife and open space values, and could (unexpanded), regional sewering could be expected to increase lead , the flow to the facility from 0.3 M.G.D. (unexpanded sanitary ' collection system, 2005) to 3.7 M.G.D. or 1,350 M.G.Y. This ' loss of fresh groundwater resources to Long Island Sound via the STP outfall would cause a significant reduction in the re- charge and volume of Southold's fresh water aquifers, with a consequently lowered water table and landward/upward movement ' of the fresh/salt water interface. This impact to North Fork aquifers and public water supply could be particularly severe ' in Southold's three smaller hydrogeologic units. ' If the regional treatment alternative was implemented, most wetlands and surface waters would receive decreased fresh ' water input as a result of receding groundwater levels. In fresh water wetlands, this impact would reduce pollution abate- ment, wildlife and open space values, and could possibly lead , 4.74 - 3 IHOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' to: a. Excavation in wetlands and terrestrial ecosystems. b. Sedimentation of surface waters. C. Disruption of faunal utilization of natural areas ' due to activity and noise. ' C. Sub -Regional Treatment (A) Greenport Expansion Population densities in the small communities of Sterling Basin, Pipes Cove, Conkling Point and North Greenport, 1 4.74 - 4 to more closely encroaching development. In tidal wetlands, the ' fresh/salt water interface would move landward and be reduced in ' size, possibly reducing the fisheries values of these areas. Additional damage to wetlands would also result from construc- tion activities necessary to sewer 45 square miles. Natural ecosystems proximate to the Long Island Sound out- ' fall would also be impacted by this alternative. Since the flow ' to the plant would increase 12 times the 2005 value, outfall volumes will similarly increase. If there were no improvements ' to the plant past the secondary level of treatment, impact to this part of the Sound (increased BOD, suspended solids, environ- mentally persistent chemical and nutrient loads) would be sig- nificant. In addition, regardless of the level of treatment, a diffuser assembly on the outfall would have to be considered. ' Finally, natural ecosystems would sustain considerable primary impacts, as a result of constructing a regional sanitary col- lection system. These impacts would include, but not be limited ' to: a. Excavation in wetlands and terrestrial ecosystems. b. Sedimentation of surface waters. C. Disruption of faunal utilization of natural areas ' due to activity and noise. ' C. Sub -Regional Treatment (A) Greenport Expansion Population densities in the small communities of Sterling Basin, Pipes Cove, Conkling Point and North Greenport, 1 4.74 - 4 IHOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / HZM CORP. adjacent to the existing Greenport sanitary collection system, have been increasing to the point where these communities have ' shown a need for sewering. This alternative considers expanding and upgrading the existing Greenport facility in order to service ' these surrounding areas. This expansion is anticipated to in- crease wastewater flows to the Greenport sewage treatment plant ' by 112,000 gallons per day. ' 1. Social Impacts This alternative will provide limited long term benefits. By serving the specific populations of the Sterling Basin, Pipes Cove, Conkling Point and North Greenport communi- ties, sewering will improve public health and safety. A secon- dary impact may be increased development pressures in these com- munities, resulting in additional homes and higher densities. Other secondary impacts include the esthetic improvements as- sociated with the elimination of private septic systems and the periodic odors and nuisances of pumping or overflows. ' Short term impacts resulting from construction include noise, odors and dust. Potential disturbance to his- torical or archaeological resources depend on specific design and construction procedures. 2. Natural Environmental Impacts - The impact of this ' alternative will be decreased groundwater recharge and nitrate contamination of the aquifer underlying Greenport. Since this expansion will increase outfall by approximately 40 percent, additional groundwater resources will be lost from the Greenport 1 4.74 - 5 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. hydrogeologic unit. However, it is expected, due to high popu- lation densities in areas to be sewered, that this negative im- pact will be compensated for by decreased nitrate pollution of the Greenport aquifer. If this expansion is carried out, Green- port STP will have to be upgraded through improved operating ' procedures and/or facilities, in order to remove 85 percent of ' suspended solids and five day BOD, as specified in the SPDES permit. The impact of increased outfall will be a 25-35 per- cent greater BOD -5, suspended solids, nutrient, metals and chlorine loadings of Long Island Sound marine communities ' proximate to the outfall than will occur with the No Action ' alternative. Damage to natural ecosystems resulting from construction ' of additional sewers will be minimal due to the higher population densities of areas in which expansion will occur. ' (B) Pumping to Greenport (Engineering Alternative B) ' If a nitrate contamination monitoring program, to be conducted in the Mattituck area (western Southold), indicates ' that on-site disposal systems are contributing significantly to groundwater pollution problems in Southold's largest and most ' westerly hydrogeologic unit, then sewering would be a viable ' solution to this problem. This alternative examines collecting and pumping wastewater from the Mattituck area (western Southold) ' to the existing Inc. Village of Greenport STP. The plant would have to be expanded to handle estimated wastewater flows of ap- proximately 0.4-0.5 million gallons per day from the Mattituck ' area. 1 4.74 - 6 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 1. Social Impacts ' This alternative presents moderate positive long ' term impacts. Benefits will be realized by improved public health and safety, due to improved groundwater quality. Es- thetics will also be improved as private septic systems would be eliminated, ending periodic pumpage, overflow and odor an- noyances. While this alternative would induce land development ' in the Mattituck area, long term engineering design would have to allow for this induced growth to minimize future constraint ' on development. Short term impacts are due to construction in the ' Mattituck area. These impacts include noise, odors and dust. ' A direct long term impact due to construction, could be distur- bance of historic and archaeologic resources. These impacts ' may only be determined based on subsurface investigation. 2. Natural Environmental Impacts - This alternative ' would cause several environmental impacts to groundwater and ' natural ecosystems in Southold. Groundwater resources would be reduced by approximately .4 to .5 M.G.D., since the treated ' effluent would be discharged to Long Island Sound via Green - port's outfall. The magnitude of impacts resulting from this ' additional irreversible consumption cannot be predicted. How- ever, if on-site disposal systems are a significant contributor to nitrate pollution problems in the Mattituck area, then it is ' expected that decreased contamination of this aquifer would com- pensate for the loss of groundwater resources. Impacts to 4.74 - 7 r 11 1 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. natural ecosystems would occur during construction of a 13 mile pipe and two pump stations, from Mattituck to Greenport. Addi- tionally, the doubled outfall from Greenport would double the BOD, suspended solids, nutrients, chlorine and metals loadings in marine communities proximate to the Greenport STP outfall. This combined outfall is, however, environmentally preferable to a separate Mattituck outfall, because it would concentrate the impacts outlined above to one area which has already re- ceived these impacts. Finally, since decreased recharge will occur only in Southold's largest hydrogeological unit, decreased input of fresh water to wetlands is not expected to be signifi- cant. (C) Treatment Plant in Mattituck (Engineering Alter- native C) If the monitoring program in the Mattituck area indi- cates contamination, this alternative calls for constructing a treatment plant in the Mattituck region to treat a minimum of .46 M.G.D. The following are several treatment processes to be considered as a possible system to treat wastewater from the Mattituck area, under this alternative: ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION C-1 Trickling filter with primary sedimentation C-2 Rotating biological discs C-3 Extended aeration activated sludge 4.74 - 8 IHOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 1� t ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION ' C-4 Contact stabilization activated sludge ' C-5 Complete mix activated sludge C-6 Marsh/Pond system ' Each of the above alternatives will be evaluated under two (2) options, except Alternative C-6. Option "a" requires that the effluent be discharged into Long Island Sound by an outfall ' separate from Greenport STP's outfall. In Option "b", land ap- plication will be utilized to treat and dispose of the effluent. ' A detailed description of each of these alternatives can be found in Section 4.2.3. ' 1. Social Impacts ' Alternatives C-1 through C-5 present long term positive impacts on land use development in the Mattituck area. ' Each of those alternatives will allow continued development in that community by providing improved waste water management and ' result in improved groundwater quality. In turn, restrictions or limitations on using private wells for -domestic water supply ' will be removed or less severe. Alternatives C-1 through 5 pro- vide better long term service to the Mattituck area than the al- ternative previously discussed in Section 5.2.4, which sends ' Mattituck wastes to the Greenport plant. With a local sub - regional plant, future development will be less restricted as ' required capacity would be easier to achieve. 1 4.74 - 9 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 11 ' Other long term benefits include improved esthetics, as the periodic odors and nuisances associated with private sep- tic systems would be eliminated. Long term impacts on histori- cal and archaeological resources are dependent on actual sewer ' placement and treatment plant siting. Assessment of impacts is ' subject to a Phase IA, B and II survey. Short term impacts resulting from Alternatives ' C-1 through C-5 are more extensive than for the other Mattituck alternative discussed in Section 5.2.4.1. In addition to the ' odors, noise and dust of construction of the sewer system, im- pacts result from construction of the new treatment plant. Impacts associated with the effluent disposal al- ternatives differ. Option "a" may produce a long term esthetic impact in the vicinity of the outfall. These impacts would be ' specific to impacts on the wetland community and recreational fishing and swimming in the outfall area. Short term impacts ' relate to construction of this facet of the facility, in addi- tion to the plant itself. Option "b" would result in a long term positive ' impact on groundwater quantity and future water supply. Recharge through land application is preferable to ocean outfall and the ' net loss of groundwater. Moderate esthetic impacts could, how- ever, result from land application. The level of impact is directly related to public awareness and perception of the land ' application method and site. Location of a lagoon on a municipal 4.74 - 10 ' H , OLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' site will result in fewer perceived impacts than irrigation of agricultural lands. Irrigation of recreational lands would be ' most visible to the public and would result in a higher degree ' of impact than the previous means. Short term disturbances due to construction of a ' land application system would be minimal compared to construc- tion of an outfall. The actual level of impact depends on siting ' of the application system, in relation to the treatment plant ' and means of transporting the effluent. Alternative C-6 would provide beneficial long ' term impacts as did 1-5 on land development. If the marsh/pond system is less flexible to accommodate increased flows due to ' development in Mattituck, then Alternatives 1 through 5 would ' provide more extensive benefits to the community. Similarly, a marsh/pond system, properly implemented, would improve ground- water quality over the long term. Other impacts associated with this system are similar to the esthetic and construction impacts described above for land application. 2. Natural Environmental Impacts ' Alternative C-1, a + b - This system will regularly ' achieve only 80 percent BOD and suspended solids removal. Since permitting standards require 85 percent removal of these pollu- tants, C-1, a + b alternatives are environmentally unacceptable. Alternatives C-2 - C-5 - All of these alternatives ' achieve a reliably high level of secondary treatment, and so 1 4.74 - 11 HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 11 ' all are environmentally acceptable. However, rotating biologi- cal discs are preferred to activated sludge processes, because ' of their generally higher degree of BOD/suspended solids re- moval, more complete nitrification of ammonia in the waste ' stream, lower sensitivity to shock loads, and simplified opera- ting procedure. All of these characteristics indicate that ro- tating biological discs would most reliably produce the cleanest ' effluent. Therefore, they would have the least significant out- fall impacts and would possibly only require a denitrification step to achieve the 10 mg/l nitrate groundwater discharge standard. ' Alternatives C-2 - C-5 a - Outfall disposal of efflu- ents from a Mattituck STP would have groundwater impacts as de- scribed previously in this section. A separate outfall for Mattituck STP effluent will, ' however, have more adverse BOD, suspended solids, nutrients, ' metals and toxic (i.e., chlorine) loading effects upon natural ecosystems than discharging via Greenport's outfall. This in- creased impact will result from introduction of these pollutants to a marine system not previously disturbed by a sewage treat- ment plant discharge. If other environmental and economic con- siderations outweigh this increased impact, and a separate out- fall is utilized, the outfall should be located in Long Island ' Sound and not in Peconic Bay. Outfalling to Peconic Bay would have unacceptable impacts and risks because of the aforementioned Ipollution loads and, in the event of treatment failure, much ' 4.74 - 12 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' greater pollution loads would be introduced to a very productive marine community which currently provides a significant portion ' of the catch for eastern Long Island's fisheries. Furthermore, ' the Peconic Bay area has more wetlands, a relatively restricted current pattern and lower dilution capabilities than Long Island ' Sound. If outfall to Long Island Sound is utilized, care should be taken to position the outfall so that currents from either tide will not carry the effluent on -shore or into bays ' and tidal creeks. Finally, free chlorine in the effluents of these alternatives can greatly increase their toxic impact upon the receiving environment. This impact results from the com- bination of these free chlorines with organics in the receiving surface water, forming toxic chlorinated hydrocarbons (i.e., chloramines). Therefore, in these facilities, chlorination ' practices should be established to prevent higher free chlorine concentrations than are necessary for disinfection. ' Alternatives C-2 - C-5 b - Land application of efflu- ent from a Mattituck STP would be a more expensive, but also more environmentally sound effluent disposal alternative than ' an outfall to either Long Island Sound or Peconic Bay. Land application will require more expensive treatment because it ' will probably have to include nitrification/denitrification processes or use a large application area so that the effluent ' will meet a 10 mg/l groundwater discharge standard for nitrates. 1 4.74 - 13 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' This additional cost may, however, be justified by the conser- vation of groundwater resources, and prevention of further up- ward and landward movement of the fresh water/salt water inter- face. ' Land application would have to be accomplished either in lagoons, recreational areas, or on crops which are not for human consumption. Therefore, wastewaters could not be used to irrigate potatoes or cauliflower, but would be suitable for irri- gating sod farms, and recreational areas (i.e., golf courses). ' Land application could also be utilized for Greenport's ' effluent, if treatment were upgraded to produce an effluent which met groundwater discharge standards. ' Alternatives C-2 - C-5 a + b - In addition to impacts already discussed for each of these alternatives, natural eco- systems may sustain additional primary impact as a result of ' their construction. These impacts will include, but are not limited to. ' a) Excavation of shoreline or wetlands (outfall). b) Excavation or disruption of terrestrial ecosystems. c) Excavation or disruption of agricultural lands. ' Alternative C-6 - This alternative consists of a natural system of treating domestic sewage by land application ' through marshes and ponds. Wastewater would undergo preliminary screening, then aeration; the flow would then be pumped inter- mittently into a marsh which would overflow into a pond. The 1 4.74 - 14 IHOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' pond effluent would then be suitable for land application or groundwater discharge. ' Construction of the Marsh/Pond Treatment System en- tails selecting a 10-12 acre tract of land, suitable for effec- tive filtering of wastewater. This involves an initial excava- tion of the site to line the area with PVC containers, and grad- ing to insure the flow of water to the collecting pond. During construction and in selection of the site, attention should be given to minimize detrimental environmental impacts, with par- ticular regard to groundwater contamination, loss of primary agricultural lands and destruction of wildlife habitats. The clean water from the pond is treated as effluent, ' and will be transported via pumping to an area outside of the PVC -lined system. This effluent is available for land usage, ' either as recharge or direct application to agricultural crops (not destined for human consumption). With the current stressed ' situation of the groundwater in the Southold area, due to salt water intrusion, land application is an effective way of reduc- ing the infiltration of chlorides and improving groundwater ' quality. The construction of this Marsh/Pond Complex creates ' some new habitats for aquatic -related species, including water ' fowl, insects, bacteria and algae. Consideration should be given to health associated problems which might occur from water -breed- ing pathogens. n t4.74 - 15 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' The Marsh/Pond system is relatively new and many of the long range effects are not known. Consideration should be ' given to the effects of extended periods of wastewater applied to the soil environment in a closed system (i.e., areas in which the wastewater does not reach the water table and thus does not ' recharge the underlying squifer). The possibility exists that the soil's interstitial spaces may become clogged or contami- nated, thus affecting the soil's filtration capacity. Careful management and monitoring could avert associated environmental ' problems which might occur with the soil's reduced cleansing capacity. D. Other Non-Sewering Alternatives The previous sections on structural alternatives dealt with conventional means of effluent disposal, i.e., surface water discharge utilizing a Long Island Sound outfall. This section deals with the environmental impacts of three alternative methods of effluent disposal in order to conserve the limited groundwater ' resource; groundwater recharge, industrial and municipal waste- water reuse, and land application for wastewater treatment and disposal for a new sub -regional treatment facility at Mattituck. 1. Social Impacts ' Groundwater Recharge of effluent would provide ' long term benefits to the groundwater supply. Therefore, quanti- ties available for public water would be available to support the projected population growth. Possible esthetic impacts may result, as described in the previous section on land application of effluent. 4.74 - 16 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' Water Reuse would preserve and maintain quantities of water available for public use by reducing the quantities in- itially drawn. This alternative would benefit supply for both public and private wells, and domestic and commercial use. Land Application of Wastewater Treatment and Dis- posal for Mattituck 1. Infiltration and percolation present long term ' negative impacts to public health and safety due to impaired groundwater quality. This negative impact is not offset by bene- fits of recharge and the maintained quantities of water for pub- lic and private use. 2. Overland flow would, as other recharge alter- natives, positively benefit groundwater quantities. However, significant land requirements to achieve the desired level of treatment would result in significant esthetic impacts, includ- ing visual and odors. 2. Natural Environmental Impacts Groundwater Recharge of effluent from both STP's would provide a more efficient method of groundwater conservation ' intrusion and prevention of salt water than land application, be- cause it would require less land and no waters would be lost by evaporation. However, groundwater recharge would require more extensive treatment to produce an effluent meeting groundwater discharge standards, because plants and percolation would not be "treat" used to the effluent. Therefore, since a relatively large 4.74 - 17 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' amount of open space is available for land application of efflu- ent in Southold, the extra expense of groundwater recharge may not be justified. Wastewater Reuse is an environmentally attractive alternative, because it would conserve groundwater resources by reducing the initial demand for water. If wastewaters are re- used once, initial water demand can be reduced by approximately 50 percent. For non-food processing industries, the current level of treatment may be sufficient to meet their needs. How- ever, municipal reuse would require a high degree of treatment to render effluent potable. Reuse by irrigation of recreational areas was discussed under Alternatives C-2 - C-5, Option b. Recently, the Town of Southold was approached by a firm which designs and constructs incinerators for solid waste disposal. These facilities require, according to the manufacturer, over 100,000 gpd of low quality water for cooling and quenching oper- ations• Therefore, the possibility of diverting a portion of Greenport's treated effluent to Cutchogue (landfill site) exists. If the solid waste incineration complex is constructed, imple- mentation of reuse would reduce: a) the quantity of water discharge by Greenport to Long Island Sound, and b) minimize withdrawals of groundwater from the Cut- chogue area for the incineration complex. These beneficial impacts of reuse would have to be weighed against the capital and 0 & M costs of pumping the treated 4.74 - 18 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' effluent to Cutchogue from Greenport. This alternative will be evaluated further if the town responds favorably to this solid ' waste disposal option. Land Application of Wastewater Treatment and Dis- posal for Mattituck ' 1. Infiltration and Percolation - This method utilizes pre -application treatment to reduce suspended solids, ' and then discharges the effluent to a lagoon for groundwater recharge. If properly operated, this method could sufficiently ' reduce BOD to meet groundwater discharge standards. However, only 80 percent nitrogen removal would be achieved, and it is believed that this would be insufficient to meet the 10 mg/l ' groundwater discharge standard. Therefore, although this alter- native will conserve groundwater resources, it will result in contamination of the aquifer, which it recharges and so is an ' environmentally unacceptable alternative. 2. Overland Flow - In this technique, wastewater ' is applied to the upper reaches of sloped terraces and allowed to flow across a vegetated surface to runoff collection ditches. ' Soils should be relatively impermeable. Treatment is accomplished ' by physical, chemical and biological means as the wastewater flows uniformly through the grass and vegetative cover. Pre -application ' of wastewater, at minimum, should include removal of solids, grit and grease which generally hamper effective sprinkling application. In Southold, it would be difficult to find an area with suitable topographic and soil conditions, and which is far 4.74 - 19 1 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. enough from a surface water body or wetland to utilize this al- ternative. In addition, land application for wastewater treat- ment would require the greatest amount of land of all alternatives. This is because nitrogen loads per unit of land would have to be low enough to provide sufficient uptake of nitrates by plants and 1 denitrification by soil bacteria to produce an effluent which meets groundwater discharge standards, even during precipitation ' events and cold weather. The positive impacts of this alternative would be ' the conservation of Southold's groundwater resources and elimina- tion of effluent discharge to surface waters. i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 4.74 - 20 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' 4.3.12 Environmental Assessment Many of the wastewater treatment alternatives evaluated in this section will produce a solid fraction or sludge, in addition to a liquid effluent. This sludge must be treated and then disposed in of an environmentally sound manner. ' The following sections will evaluate the sludge treatment and disposal methods for the wastewater and scavenger waste al- ternatives previously examined. A. Sludge Treatment ' The engineering alternatives for this facilities plan ' examined three degrees of sludge treatment prior to any disposal method. The first degree of treatment for sludge involves re- ducing its volume by removing water. Initial volume reduction methods under consideration utilize enclosed systems and the effluent is recirculated back into the treatment facility. ' Therefore, they will have no social or natural environmental impacts and are not considered further. ' The second degree of treatment follows enclosed de- watering methods. It involves further volume reduction and ' stabilization. This stage of sludge treatment is called di- gestion. Sludge volume is reduced either aerobically or anaero- bically by bacterial consumption of carbon compounds. Bacteria in the aerobic process would produce carbon dioxide (CO2) and water, and bacteria in the anaerobic process would produce methane and carbon monoxide (CO). Anaerobic digestion could 1 4.95 - 1 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' have an air pollution impact resulting from methane and CO pro- duction. However, collection and combustion of these gases would eliminate this concern by converting these pollutants to CO2 and ' water. Therefore, there are no social or natural environmental impacts associated with this stage of sludge treatment. ' The third volume reduction stage involves final dewater- ing. The method being considered utilizes drying beds, or shallow ' lagoons adjacent to the treatment plant which could have potential ' environmental impacts, depending on their method of construction. If the sludge drying beds are lined with an impervious material, ' then the liquid fraction of the sludges will not leach to ground- water. Instead, this liquid will be evaporated without environ- However, if these beds are leachate mental consequences. unlined, from the sludge will carry dissolved contaminants (i.e., nitrates and metals) to the underlying aquifer. Since contamination of ' groundwater resources is an unacceptable environmental impact in Southold, unlined dewatering beds should not be utilized. ' B. Sludge Disposal ' The disposal of the sewage sludge produced at a treat- ment plant encompasses the final stage of sludge handling treat- ment processes. Again, the volume of sludge is reduced or changed in character so that disposal can be facilitated. A comparative ' screening process of various sludge management plans resulted in ' the selection of the following four plans: 4.95 - 2 i. ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 1 4.95 - 3 Plan A - Sanitary Landfill - with double liner, ' leachate collection system and a methane collection system Plan B - Land Application of Sludge Plan C - Composting Plan D - Incineration - Multiple Hearth An evaluation of each of the plan's environmental impacts follows: ' 1. Social Impacts - Disposal of stabilized sludges in a modified Southold landfill, fully equipped with double liner - leachate in the Sludge Management collection system, as proposed ' Plan A, would have minimal adverse social impacts. Landfilling in an environmentally sound manner is a socially acceptable and ' viable alternative. It is relatively inexpensive, requires little capital investment and can be quickly implemented. Since Plan A ' involves modifications to an existing disturbed landfill site ' and only necessitates 1.3 additional acres, this poses little land use implications in terms of shifting development patterns, ' inducing excessive growth or loss of significant unique land areas. Positive primary social impacts would be realized by ' Plan A since it provides a greater degree of safety to public health than existing practices. Groundwater contamination from nitrogen and other constituents of sludge leaching into aquifer resources would be significantly reduced. The implementation of a groundwater monitoring system to detect leaks in the liner would also provide additional protection to public health safety. 1 4.95 - 3 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' If not properly maintained, sludge landfilling sites may produce objectionable odors, creating a public nuisance. ' Sludge Management Plan B, land application, has several adverse social impacts. Presuming that suitable sites would be ' found in the study area, there is the potential of adversely im- pacting public health by leaching of nitrates and pathogens into ' ground and surface waters if disposal is not properly managed. ' Proper application rates to maximize plant uptake of nutrients is the controlling factor. Sludge application to some agri- cultural land may also adversely affect future harvesting of the crop if it concentrates certain trace elements found in sludge enriched soils. Other additional adverse impacts may be realized in the area of offensive odors and energy consumption (increased transportation costs), although these impacts are forecasted to be minimal. Considering the large amount of agricultural and vacant ' land within the study area, utilization of these two suitable ' land uses by the adoption of this method is not considered a sig- nificant impact. The major positive impact is that iw would serve to recharge groundwater in the study area. Composting of sludge, Management Plan C, is an innova- tive for and environmentally sound method the study area as the ' sludge generated is relatively free of toxic materials. This method takes a relatively small area, and produces minimal land use impacts, since adequate suitable land is available in the study area. There would be no significant dangers to public 1 4.95 - 4 . HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. adverse primary social effects due to negative public health impacts resulting from degrading air quality. In light of ' federal air quality standards and the lack of public support for incineration projects, to construct and operate an incinera- tor designed to meet emission standards and public acceptance, would be extremely costly. Although this incineration alterna- tive would greatly reduce the volume of sludge, it produces a ' residue that would have to be disposed in an environmentally acceptable landfill. This adds another cost dimension to this plan. Considering the relatively small volume of sludge pro- duced in the study area, a costly volume reduction method such as Management Plan D does not seem to be warranted. Additional ' adverse social impacts could be realized in terms of loss of open space/recreation, agricultural and historia areas• Other 1 4.95 - 5 ' health from pathogens or public nuisance created by any offen- sive odors. The only negative social impacts are associated with its cost. Composting requires more equipment, materials and handling of sludge than other methods and it is often neces- sary to find a market for the end product or to use it in muni- cipal landscaping porjects to offset its higher costs. It is a useful and efficient method and especially recommended for the ' study area, which is largely agricultural and rural in nature. The likelihood of finding a market for the product is greater ' and it may be used to fertilize and improve the physical proper- ties of the soils. Sludge Management Plan D, incineration, could have adverse primary social effects due to negative public health impacts resulting from degrading air quality. In light of ' federal air quality standards and the lack of public support for incineration projects, to construct and operate an incinera- tor designed to meet emission standards and public acceptance, would be extremely costly. Although this incineration alterna- tive would greatly reduce the volume of sludge, it produces a ' residue that would have to be disposed in an environmentally acceptable landfill. This adds another cost dimension to this plan. Considering the relatively small volume of sludge pro- duced in the study area, a costly volume reduction method such as Management Plan D does not seem to be warranted. Additional ' adverse social impacts could be realized in terms of loss of open space/recreation, agricultural and historia areas• Other 1 4.95 - 5 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' negative social impacts could result from the siting of the in- cinerator. The facility would have to be located in an area tremote from sensitive land use areas such as residences and natural resource areas. Sufficient land would also be required ' to buffer the site from surrounding uses to minimize negative ' impacts due to esthetics, odors, noise and transporation. 2. Natural Environmental Impacts ' Sludge Management Plan A - Since Southold's landfill must soon be equipped with a double liner - leachate collection ' system, primary environmental impacts from leachate, discussed ' in Section 3.1.3, would not result from this alternative. Fur- thermore, a methane collection system would eliminate the possi- bility ossi- bility of air pollution impacts from anaerobic decomposition of the sludge once it is landfilled. The only negative impact of ' this management plan would be the use of an additional 1.3 acres ' of landfill space over a 20 -year period. This alternative would, therefore, be an environmentally acceptable method of ultimate I sludge disposal. Sludge Management Plan B - Land application of uncom- ' posted sludge to agricultural areas has been demonstrated to ' leach significant concentrations of nutrients and possibly metals to groundwater. Since significant contamination of groundwater ' represents a severe, primary environmental impact in Southold, this alternative is environmentally unacceptable. Sludge Management Plan C - Windrow composting of sludge ' followed by land application or marketing of the product could 1 4.95 - 6 I, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' possibly be the most environmentally sound alternative for sludge disposal. In this process, aerobic bacteria will de- crease the amount and/or solubility of nutrients in the sludge by converting some nutrients to gaseous form (i.e., nitrates tto nitrogen gas) and others to organic or less soluble forms (i.e., phosphorus to organic phosphorus). This compost could then be applied to agricultural lands or marketed as a soil con- ditioner. Since some nutrients were removed from the sludge by composting, leachate from compost properly applied to agri- lands be to discharge cultural would expected meet groundwater ' standards. A significant environmental concern in implementing this alternative would be the concentrations of various metals ' and other environmentally persistent consitutents of sludge. Therefore, sludges and compost products should be analyzed to ' determine the concentrations of these contaminants and the sig- nificance of their impact to groundwater when utilizing several sludge -load -per -unit -land application schedules. If this method ' is proven environmentally acceptable and feasible, it would have the positive primary impacts of eliminating the need for ulti- mate sludge disposal by landfilling and slightly decreasing the ' need for inorganic fertilizers on Southold's agricultural lands. Sludge Management Plan D - Incineration of sludge ' could have significant primary air quality impacts. However, EPA Clean Air Act (1970) regulations 40 CFR 60, subpart O, limit ' particulate emissions to 1.35 lbs./ton of dry sludge and gases �l J 1 4.95 - 7 ' , + HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' could have no more than 20 percent opacity. Since incinerator bottom ash and particulates trapped in Electrostatic Precipita- tors contain most of the metal contaminants from the original ' sludge, a modern sludge incinerator would discharge mostly gases composed of carbon dioxide and water. The ash, which would be ' greatly reduced in volume and contain significantly higher con- centrations of metals, would have to be landfilled. If this was ' done in the facility described in Sludge Management Plan A, leachate from this ash would not impact groundwater quality. ' Therefore, as a result of these environmental regulations, in- ' cineration of sludge is an environmentally acceptable alterna- tive. 1 t t 1 ' 4.95 - 8 o, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 4.4.10 Environmental Assessment Scavenger wastes are currently collected by trucks from ' malfunctioning or fully utilized on-site sewage disposal sys- tems of homes and commercial establishments, in the portions of the study area which are not serviced by the Greenport STP. ' The scavenger wastes collected from these areas are being dis- posed via leaching lagoons at the existing Town of Southold ' landfill in Cutchogue. NYSDEC has requested that this practice be terminated and, therefore, Southold must find an alternate method of disposal. Since Shelter Island is a neighboring com- munity of Southold and also has a similar problem of finding an alternate means of disposal to leaching lagoons for their ' scavenger wastes, regional and sub -regional solutions have been developed to include the Town of Shelter Island in the scavenger waste portion of this facilities plan. One of the alternatives, ' the No Action, is considered a non-viable alternative, since it entails continuing the present unacceptable method of disposal. ' For a further discussion of the ramifications of this alterna- tive, see Section 3.0. Nine other treatment alternatives are ' being considered and in this section, the environmental impacts ' of each of these are examined. 1. Social Impacts - Implementation of any of the nine ' scavenger waste alternatives would represent a significant, long- term improvement in public health and safety over the present ' scavenger waste disposal method. Due to the similarity of social 1 4.157 ' r HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. �I IJ I impacts with some of the alternatives, this section will dis- cuss them in four groupings: ' 1. Alternative SW -2 - Transport to another facility ' 2. Alternatives SW -3 - SW -6 - All involving Greenport STP ' The siting of a scavenger waste facility in the study will pre- sent both long and short-term impacts. on a long-term basis, ' providing the location is properly selected and there is ade- quate site planning to ensure buffering of noise and odors, ' there is not expected to be any adverse social impacts. Posi- tive land use impacts will result from providing favorable conditions for development, since adoption of a needed waste 1 4.158 3. Alternatives SW -7 - SW -9 - All involving ' separate treatment facilities ' 4. Alternative SW -10 a & b - Marsh/Pond Alternative SW -2 - The primary social benefit of this al- ternative is that it would abate the groundwater pollution and public health problems which presently exist from scavenger ' waste disposal. The primary adverse social impacts of imple- menting this alternative are fiscal. Since the operating costs ' of this alternative are tied to the escalating costs of trans- portation (i.e., fuel prices), estimating costs over a 20 -year planning period is unpredictable. Alternatives SW -7 - SW -9 - The main social impacts associ- ated with building separate scavenger waste facilities are sit- ing, traffic, esthetics, short-term construction and economics. ' The siting of a scavenger waste facility in the study will pre- sent both long and short-term impacts. on a long-term basis, ' providing the location is properly selected and there is ade- quate site planning to ensure buffering of noise and odors, ' there is not expected to be any adverse social impacts. Posi- tive land use impacts will result from providing favorable conditions for development, since adoption of a needed waste 1 4.158 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. treatment measure will help to remove land use restrictions as- sociated with groundwater protection. In the long run, the implementation of improved and reliable scavenger waste treat- ment provides a basis for improved esthetic quality and is a positive impact on the area. This offsets the impacts associ- ated with utilizing an additional site for the construction of a new facility. Considering that Southold and Shelter Island are two small rural communities with comparable small town budgets, unforeseen increases in the annual operating costs of this alternative could have adverse monetary consequences to the tax bases of these communities. It is therefore not a highly recommended alternative. Alternatives SW -3 - SW -6 - The overall social impacts re- sulting from upgrading the Greenport facility to handle the com- bined scavenger waste - wastewater flows are positive and would be about the same for each of the alternatives. Implementation of any of these reliable, environmentally sound and efficient waste treatment methods represent a long-term improvement in public health and safety, and are therefore recommended. The potential adverse impacts to public health and safety deal with the sludge drying beds and landfill treatment. If existing facilities are to be utilized or enlarged, adequate steps should be taken to ensure that the bottoms of both are impervious. If not, there is the threat to public health from contaminated leachate reaching groundwater resources. 4.159 '. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' Short-term impacts are primarily associated with construc- tion of the treatment facility, the noise and odors of construc- tion equipment, and the unsightly nature of construction and its debris. ' Since these impacts are short-term, lasting only the dura- I Trucking of wastes should be done at off peak travel times so as to minimize the chance of accident and possible ' leakage of waste. Trucks should also receive regular checks and maintenance to assure that no waste is escaping into the ' environment from leakage. Alternatives SW -3 - SW -6 - The existing sewage treat- ment plant at Greenport is, on occasion, exceeding discharge ' limitations specified in its SPDES permit. If this facility is not upgraded, the addition of untreated scavenger wastes, either 4.160 tion of construction, they do not represent significant adverse impacts. Construction and operation of a new facility creates ' jobs and constitutes a positive primary social impact. In summary, these alternatives generally result in positive ' social impacts and are therefore recommended alternatives. ' 2. Natural Environmental Impacts - Alternative SW -2 - The collection and screening/degritting station constructed for this alternative should not be located in an area that would ad- versely affect groundwater, use primary agricultural lands, or destroy wildlife habitats. Additionally, the facility should be sited so that accidental spills would not drain into a surface water or wetland. I Trucking of wastes should be done at off peak travel times so as to minimize the chance of accident and possible ' leakage of waste. Trucks should also receive regular checks and maintenance to assure that no waste is escaping into the ' environment from leakage. Alternatives SW -3 - SW -6 - The existing sewage treat- ment plant at Greenport is, on occasion, exceeding discharge ' limitations specified in its SPDES permit. If this facility is not upgraded, the addition of untreated scavenger wastes, either 4.160 '. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' combined with Shelter Island or alone, would undoubtedly in- crease the frequency of outfall in contravention of standards. Therefore, these alternatives consider upgrading Greenport STP ' to treat these combined wastes. The structural changes involved for these treatments vary with each alternative. However, if construction occurs on an already disturbed site well removed from surface waters and wetlands, no construction impacts to natural areas or endangered ' and threatened species would occur. Alternative SW -3 - The advantages of this treatment are production of high quality effluent, reliability, and re- sistance to shock loadings. Disadvantages include frequent ' monitoring and odors at the primary settling and aeration tanks. ' Alternative SW -4 - This alternative is not recommended due to uncertainty of achieving sufficient treatment to meet dis- charge limitations. The problem with this method would occur in primary settling (Imhoff) tanks, which would not be capable ' of removing a sufficient percentage of solids from the combined ' flow. Therefore, the aerated lagoon and/or final settling tank would become overloaded with solids, resulting in depletion of ' the oxygen supply and large quantities of solids in the effluent. This effluent would not be acceptable for outfall disposal, due ' to its inability to meet SPDES permit requirements and its en- vironmental impacts, as described in Section 3.0 4.161 I. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. Alternative SW -5 - In this alternative, rotating bio- logical discs reduce the carbonaceous BOD and create a buffer ' for the more easily upset activated sludge system. This process ' ensures consistent BOD removal. The SW -5 alternative would, therefore, provide excellent removal efficiencies, producing an effluent which would reliably be within the SPDES limitations. This system would be environmentally acceptable. ' Alternative SW -6 - In this alternative, scavenger waste would receive chemical addition, flocculation, primary settling ' and biological treatment, via RBD units prior to being combined ' with the raw wastewater collected from the sewered area. The combined flow is then treated by the existing STP, which, with ' minor modifications and/or additional equipment added, would be able to treat high organic loadings that may enter the plant. This system would produce a high quality effluent suitable for ' outfall (reliably meeting effluent limitations) and would, there- fore, be an environmentally acceptable alternative. ' Alternatives SW -7 - SW -9 - These alternatives all in- volve construction of basically separate facilities to treat scavenger waste. As with alternatives SW -3 - SW -6, proper siting ' of these facilities would not cause primary environmental impacts to natural ecosystems as a result of construction. ' Alternative SW -7 - Since effluent from this treatment plant would meet SPDES permit requirements, this alternative is ' environmentally acceptable. 4.162 IHOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. Alternative SW -8 - Effluent from this double treatment would meet SPDES permit requirements. However, the use of aerated ' lagoons could cause environmental impact if the liquid fraction, with its dissolved contaminants, were allowed to leach to ground- water. In order to eliminate this impact, these lagoons would ' have to be lined with an impermeable material. If this were done, alternative SW -8 would be environmentally acceptable. Alternative SW -9 - This system treats scavenger wastes with chlorine gas to form hypochlorous acid and oxygen, thereby ' converting organic matter into stable non -odorous sludge. The Nassau -Suffolk 208 Technical Advisory Committee has objected to this treatment method due to problems with sludge diposal and ' the impact of chlorinated organics on surface waters. This im- pact occurs when the effluent contains greater than 1 mg/l of ' chlorine (the concentration necessary for disinfection), which then reacts with organics, mostly in the receiving environment, ' to produce toxic chlorinated hydrocarbons (i.e., chloramines). ' With alternative SW -9, the effluent would be combined with the raw influent to Greenport's STP. Formation of these toxics ' would then occur in the STP, but be limited by the chlorine demand of the influent. To ensure that the concentrations of ' these compounds are minimized in the final effluent, treatment ' at Greenport would have to be upgraded to ensure suspended solids removal greater than required by the SPDES permit. Al- though this alternative would then be environmentally acceptable, it is not environmentally preferred. 1 4.163 1 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. Alternative SW -10 a & b - In these systems, vegetation planted in artificially constructed meadows, marshes and ponds is used to treat wastewaters. The major environmental advantages ' Since the meadows, marshes and ponds composing these systems would be lined with impervious materials, none of the ' liquid fraction of scavenger wastes would leach to groundwater ' prior to full treatment. Approximately one to two acres would be required for both the marsh/pond and the meadow/marsh/pond. This is approxi- mately the same acreage required for other, separate scavenger ' waste facilities, but less than required for upgrading the Green- port STP. If the marsh/pond facility was constructed on an al- ready disturbed site (i.e., adjacent to Greenport STP) in an area ' well removed from wetlands and surface waters, no natural impacts would be anticipated. ' 4.164 to these systems would be that they generate little or no sludge, ' to treat bene- and may offer a natural way scavenger wastes with fits of harvestable terrestrial and aquatic crops. For the waste- waters treated thus far by these systems, BOD, solids and nitrogen ' removals have been adequate to meet standards for both outfall and land application. ' The major disadvantage of these natural methods is that ' they have never been demonstrated on pure scavenger wastes for an extended period. Therefore, it is not known whether these systems ' would be capable of handling the varied composition of scavenger wastes from residential, commercial and restaurant sources. ' Since the meadows, marshes and ponds composing these systems would be lined with impervious materials, none of the ' liquid fraction of scavenger wastes would leach to groundwater ' prior to full treatment. Approximately one to two acres would be required for both the marsh/pond and the meadow/marsh/pond. This is approxi- mately the same acreage required for other, separate scavenger ' waste facilities, but less than required for upgrading the Green- port STP. If the marsh/pond facility was constructed on an al- ready disturbed site (i.e., adjacent to Greenport STP) in an area ' well removed from wetlands and surface waters, no natural impacts would be anticipated. ' 4.164 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 1 ' Alternatives SW -2 - SW -8 and SW -10 - Finally, in addi- tion to impacts already outlined for these alternatives, free ' chlorine in the effluent from an upgraded Greenport STP, or a separate scavenger waste facility could have an impact on the ' surface waters, if not properly controlled. Therefore, proper control/monitoring over effluent chlorination is necessary. ' The marsh/pond alternatives would present several ' This alternative is not a highly socially recommended alternative until additional data are available on the long-term ' effects of this system and it is demonstrated to be efficient. 4.165 negative social impacts. This alternative requires a great deal more land than any of the other scavenger waste alterna- tives. This fact alone is not a significant adverse impact in the Town of Southold however, since ample vacant land is avail- able for this type of system. The major concern is with sur- rounding land uses. Since this alternative has not been empiri- cally tested, there are no data on the effects to surrounding land areas and how it will affect the quality of life. If sited adjacent to residential uses, the problems of odor, esthetics ' insects have impacts. It could and could quite adverse social lead to decreased property values of homes, which could result in changes in the character of the neighborhood. Adverse secon- dary social effects include potential loss of open space/recre- ation areas, unique natural areas, historic sites and prime ' farmland. ' This alternative is not a highly socially recommended alternative until additional data are available on the long-term ' effects of this system and it is demonstrated to be efficient. 4.165 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. This alternative would be acceptable if located in an area where sufficient land is available isolated from the general public. 4.166 COUNCILMEN TELEPHONE John J. Nickles (51&) 765-1891 Lawrence Murdock, Jr. Francis J. Murphy COUNCILMEN Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Raymond W. Edwards, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 February 22, 1982 I hope the enclosed will give you some background as to Energy Development Corp. and their approach to MSW in Southold. ock Councilman G i Our business is to arrange for the establishment of MStJ facilities that will be privately financed, owned and operated. As such, a long term service will be supplied to the Town for a tipping fee per ton of MSW input. We first examine the needs, problems and constraints of a municipality concerning waste disposal. For those we feel we have something to offer, we make a presentation outlining a solution. After financing has been arranged, we recede as the staff of the new business takes over. By the time the acceptance tests have been passed, the facility is reaily.a full fledged, independent business fully staffed, equipped and operating with all necessary permits. For its services as a developer, EDC receives a fee from the Private owner - the new business - not the municipality. Important aspects of our approach from the viet•:poinz of the municipality are: The risks become extremely small. It buys a service, not a multi-million dollar plant. It arranges to get the MSW to the facility, which in most cases it has been doing for years. The tax base of the Town is not pledged. If the facility does not meet performance specification, it will be removed at no cost to the Town. The tipping fee is about equal to or less than current cost to the Town per ton of MSW disposal and much cheaper than alternate methods that would satisfy government regulations. The facilities can produce steam o- electricity or both; dispose of scavenger collected septic waste; dispose of sewerage plant sludge and use the plants secondary effulent as cooling water. r Energy Development Corporation made a proposal to Southold to incinerate instead of landfilling, re -cycling, haulinE outside Southold, eompostin�r, etc. because of the econon?ics involved. Consider each type of alternative. Landfilling: If our analysis had indicated it to be cheaper, we would not have invested any more time than about one week of examination. As the H2M pointed out in its Five Town StudS•, it would cost over fifty two dollars per ton rising with inflation if the land was available. Re-cvclin : The market is very unstable for re -cycled products an it cannot stand alone. Not only musttr costs be considered (please see Mike Krug letter toEdirorcycle dated December 21, 1981), but the remainder must be disposed. Some could be composted, but for compost there is no market. Who wants such quantities free let alone pay for it to make the process economically viable? Re-zycling for Southold is uneconomical alone or in any combination of supplemental disposal alternatives. Worst Of all, there is no long tem market for compost, re -cycled products, etc. Therefore, long term lenders refuse to finance such schemes. The only way is for the Town to guarantee the profitability of such schemes by pledging its tax base through a municipal bond; a very costly burden for the future. Hauling to Another Incinerator: Unfortunately for the citizens Of Southold, the re are none to ate and when they are built, using them will cause Southold to pay very heavy transportation costs including compacting sub -stations (twenty dollars per ton) plus however much the facility will charge per ton (twelve dollars?) and perhaps a road use tax by the Townships through which the trucks must pass; perhaps a thirty four dollar per ton total. Figures are based on the H2M Five Town Engineering Study. These alternatives require only a gross examination to grasp their impractibility, which is based on high cost to Southold, unreliable markets now and in the future and virtual impossibility of financing. Because these alternatives are expensive,Energy Development Corporation proposed incineration at the Southold landfill as the most economical for Southold. Why waste money on another engineering study when any mature individual can reach such conclusions after examining the data that already lies in the possession of the Town Board? The question then becomes which type of incineration? Energy Development Corporation on behalf of the owners of the facility viewed many approaches and evaluated the offerings of many manufacturers. The decision trail is simple and easy to travel. -2- First, there is no steam market in Southcld or even Suffolk County •.eith the e_:ception of wir—hin Brookhaven. Second the. electrical market is every Lilco sulb-station. Third, incinerators capable of producing, higher pressure and higher temperature steam 'allows the use of more efficient turbine -generators which means more eiectr:icity for sale. Therefore, the examination of facilities can be limited to those capable - for the size of Southold - of generating 600 psi and 600 degrees fahrerheit stea,:. Turbine - generators are not no=ally made at higher pressure and temperature for such small amounts of input steam. Lower pressure turbines generate less electricity for the same NSW input. The more electricity generated per ton of MSW input means more income from Lilco and less tipping to be paid by the Town. As the buyer of the facility, I am not satisfied only with viewing an operating unit nor with the manufacturers technical data, operational data, financial data, etc. We purchase an independent engineering evaluation that tells us whether or not a manufacturer can meet the specifications we set. Of course, we do this only for those that have a reasonable probability of fulfilling our requirements. For example, the large water wall incinerator plants employed by the successful Wheelerbrator - Frye in the United States and by others in Europe are not adaptable to one hundred to five hundred tons per day of MSL•V. They are too costly and therefore uneconomical. Our evaluation of the incinerators based on the Consumat design is that, by their own admission, they are pushing to get Ho psi steam. The same applies to the whole group of modular incinerators that were upgraded from their origins in hospital work of five hundred to one thousand pounds of waste per day. Because it is now being recognized that electrical generation may be profitable, several manufacturers are reluctantly adding low pressure and low temperature turbine generators. This is nice, but better efforts are available. Also the market is so large and growing, the manufacturers do not have to re -design their equipment. All the manufacturers going full tilt could not supply the total need. Hence, the units available for towns the size of Southold without a steam market are very few. Fourth on our decision trail is that we want to buy a complete turnkev that will meet special performance specifications required to process the M -SW of Southold and operate successfully within its environment. This further narrows the choice, since several manufacturers only want to sell an incinerator -boiler combination. Fifth, the manufacturer -turnkey builder must be financially strong enough to do his own financing until after the acceptance tests are -3- Passed. Further, if the tests are not passed, he must remove the equipment and return the site to its original form and re-imburse Energy Development Corporation any out of pocket costs. Sixth, he must carry insurance to cover errors and emmissions in the design of the turnkey as a whole and, of course, equip�..ent warranties. There are not many builders left willing to sign a fixed price contract. There are many lesser decisions along the way, but the above are the main ones. The next revue applies very stringent standards in completely reviewing every last aspect of MS%T-Southold,NY, Ltd. These are third party experts hired to supplement the in-house expertise of the major lenders. The talent they use includes engineers, auditors, investment analysts, economists, management experts plus all the other talent an underwriter or large international bank will employ to understand all facets prior to making a long term loan of many millions of dollars. Major lenders and underwriters from which we have obtained an interest and invitation to submit detail, have already examined the financial statements of Lilco, Southold Township, the turnkey suppliers, the syndicator, EDC, and the MSW -Southold business plan. Some have had the Trofe Turnkey examined in detail. With all..•of this power looking over our shoulder judging our every move, why is it necessary for the Town of Southold to spend money hiring engineers to do the same thing probably done much better on behalf of the banks? The answer is simple. Influential people are overwhelmed by a strange new monster suddenly appearing on the scene with characteristics that they don't believe they can understand. They become suspicious of those who say they can decide. To resolve the uncomfortable feeling, criteria should be to allow a sensible selection between proposals. First, have the proposals respond to the same needs. There can be no question that the Town is best served by a private firm that will finance, own and operate the facility and that will enter into a twenty year service contract with the Town to dispose of all of its MSW in return for a reasonable tipping fee per ton of MSW delivered to the•dump floors -4- passed. Further, if the tests are not passed, he must remove the equipment and return the site to its original form and re-imburse Energy Development Corporation any out of pocket costs. Sixth, he must carry insurance to cover errors and emmissions in the design of the turnkey as a whole and, of course, equip�..ent warranties. There are not many builders left willing to sign a fixed price contract. There are many lesser decisions along the way, but the above are the main ones. The next revue applies very stringent standards in completely reviewing every last aspect of MSW-Southold,NY, Ltd. These are third Darty experts hired to supplement the in-house expertise of the major lenders. The talent they use includes engineers, auditors, investment analysts, economists, management experts plus all the other talent an underwriter or large international bank will employ to understand all facets prior to marring a long terns loan of many millions of dollars. Major lenders and underwriters from which we have obtained an interest and invitation to submit detail, have already examined the financial statements of Lilco, Southold Township, the turnkey suppliers, the syndicator, EDC, and the MSW -Southold business plan. Some have had the Trofe Turnkey examined in detail. With all .of this power looking over our shoulder judging our every move, why is it necessary for the ToT,•n of Southold to spend money hiring engineers to do the same thing probably done much better on behalf of the banks? The answer is simple. Influential people are overwhelmed by a strange new monster suddenly appearing on the scene with characteristics that they don't believe they can understand. They become suspicious of those who say they can decide. To resolve the uncomfortable feeling, criteria should be to allow a sensible selection between proposals. First, have the proposals respond to the same needs. There can be no question that the Town is best served by a private firm that will finance, own and operate the facility and that will enter into a twenty year service contract with the Town to dispose of all of its MSW in return for a reasonable tipping fee per ton of MSW delivered to the dump floor% -4- To select ben7een proposLis there are two basic req-irements. One have the prey user obtain, at his cost, approval.,' T, construct fror., NYDEC and tiiE USEI'A. o1, per -:its to without pledging tax ^.ti'.o, have him cb�ail: financing p dging ,.he ax base of the• Gown. with a municipal bond. Then compare tiic tipp?.n(. fees and the support fro-, the Town required in each proposal, These are: sit:ple acid tests that do not require the Town to buy any consulting services. The long rerr�� lenders will supply such evaluatior:s at no cost to the ToV.-A). Since the Town Board already has two or more proposals before it each for a ttirenty year service contract, it is a simple matter to apply the tests and choose. This simple approach can be understood and applied by any mature adult. Any further negotiations would involve peripheries and the tipping fee. The former includes the source of the cooling water, whether or not the turnkey should include the processing of scavenger collected septic waste, the precise terms of the contract - consultants. legal challange), etc.; certainly not matters requiring outside Even though the lenders' analysis can only be more thorough and complete than the resources of the Town would allot,, there are some areas that the Town may well be able to exercise better judgement than the long term lender. One area is how well the proposed management team will "fit" into the total environment of the Tow:.7. Its approach to managing the facility, interfacing with the Town and its long term plans TMay or may not fit the coy:,,;:unity. It is important that the facility not only be designed to meet the needs of the Town,'but that management of the facility meet its reeds and not try and force the Town to fit the system. For example, if the people want re -cycling, then the. facility should do what it can to help and not ignore it. Another is that of risk, What makes sense for the lender may not make the best sense for the Town. These questions are straight forward. What happens if the builder quits, if the facility does not meet acceptance tests, if the equipment fails within one year, two years, or ten years, if MSW -Southold, NY, Ltd, fails, if force majeure occurs,or if the Town wants to back out before twenty years is up? The underlying question is what happens to the disposal service during the down time or a termination? The Town has no money at risk, but it does have MSW that must be processed. Let us examine each, under the MSW -Southold approach. Builder Quits: Bonding money enters and the facility is completed. Target date for facility becoming operational probably will not be affected. No change in" schedule for processing MSW. Fails Acceptance Tests: If there are design problems, or equipment ..ai ore, the pro le�ms will be corrected with funds from -5- �- r insurance and or ecuipment warranty. If N'Y'DEC or USE PA comes up with somethl.ng, sud n and une:7,:pected, modifications are made at the owners and lendc>rs• expense. Start date delayed. Current disposal r:-iethod continued. Since problem would be caused by government regulators, they most likely will grant exemptions to continue using existing approach to disposal. If a builder problem cannot be corrected, he will remove equip�ent and return site to orininal state. Tower. will have seven acres of lined landfill that can be used for probably up to four years before alternatives must be found. To,aTn loses no money, but must find alternative within four vears. Equipr_-ient Fails Within One Year: Replaced under warranty and errors and emmissions insurance. Outage probably less than orte week or two at the most.. MSW to lined landfill. Equipment Fails After One Year: Replaced at owners expense from special reserves or rrom insurance. MSW to landfill directly. MSW -Southold, NY, Ltd. Fails: Long term lender will bring in another team to operare and will re -finance to insure viability. Or Town may wish to purchase very cheaply and hire a team to operate. Since it will own the land, it will be in a very strong position. Strikes, Sto ins, Etc.: Temporaxy closedown during which MSW goes to lined landfil1. On the management side, the Town Board already has a paper outlining the approach, the key people and their qualifying experience. A summarized version follows. MSI -7 -Southold would be a new, small business coming into Southold employing twenty one people. All businesses have certain key elements that affect their success more than others. For MSW -Southold thev are: 1. Continuous, reliable operation twenty four hours each day, three hundred sixty five days per year. 2. Small independent business. 3. Must operate within strict environmental constraints. 4. Requires skills in small power generating plants. 5. Will be under continuous public observation. SZ ; .here are no such plants servin- smaller communities that do not produce stea-n for sale. 'It Sjd-Sout?iold will be d'� ffer.cnt in some aspects. It will_ be privately financed, oi,,nedand oaerated and it will generate electricity only for sale. All plants of this sizegenerating electricity from steam are part of larger or-anizations of which they are the so-called "power plant" of a hospital, factory, apartment complex, etc. Small businesses producing electrical power this size do not, to my knowledge, exist., There has been no need. Electricity generating plants produce steady flows of electricity governed by the amount of electrical power required; not by the amount of garbage fed into an incinerator. Normal plants have all the oil, coal or gas the; need to meet a well defined power output. TSW is burned, by comparison, in the amounts delivered which will vary by day, month, and year. Those veru few small YISW incinerators operating today produce given amounts of steam which means a fixed amount of MSINI input. Not so with MSW -Southold. It will produce electricity from varying amounts MSTr. input. There are no companies or individuals who have exD erience in putting together and operating such a business as required to dispose of the MSW from Southold. However, the business is certainly within the comprehension of many professionals who can be brought together to do the job. The key is to find the right ones and mold them into a successful team. Construction contractors and utility personnel, for example, are high risks. The former works or, projects, not continuous flow and the latter requires too much support to be economical. Neither are skilled, usually, in growing new businesses. The Managing General Partner of MSW -Southold will be an experienced entrepreneur with a background in electrical and mechanical engineering and experienced in starting up and growing smaller businesses. In fact, he has over fifteen.years of managing the General Managers of several different new growth companies in the areas of service and continuous processing. He is very experienced in putting together new organizations of people who function quickly as teams in operating equipment systems as independent businesses. His technical background, management experience and access to money exceed the requirements at hand. He is repeating what he has done several times before. The Facility Manager will be chosen from the management of an electrical generating plant about the size of the proposed -7- i facility. He will cross train along; with his tear.; for at least six months into using probably the only equipment nes: to him., the incinerator. Having used coal as the fuel, developing, plant routines around MSI:, under the guidance of the designers, should not be difficult. Continuous processin€ will be encouraged through the use of incentives based on, first, continuous, reliable service and, second, venerating as much electricity as feasible frog*: the input, ie: maintaining efficiency and continuous operation. The operating people w�1_11 be chosen for their professional skills in daily plant operations using equipment as similar as possible to that of 11SW-Southold. It is far better to begin with experienced individuals coring together to form a team under new ground rules than trying to change an existing, tear to do new things. Unfortunately several events are working against the Toim Board. One is that the price of equipment is rising with inflation which is still above eight percent per year. Soon our fixed price contract will have to be re-r_eg,otiated higher. Two, the current administration probably will reco mend that industrial revenue bonds cease to enjoy tax free status. Those in the mill will not be affected, but such financing for MSW -Southold cannot begin until the Board commits. Three, bond rates of all kinds continue to rise. Examine the rates in the New York Times each day. Almost everyone agrees the trend is up. Fourth, long term bank rates also are rising and are expected to continue. The Town must act soon or the expense will be very costly in tipping fees. This is no idle sales pitch. Justexa�=�ine the municipal bond rates each day. From a recent low in October of ten percent, they have risen to over thirttn percent today. Each percentage point equates to about two dollars per ton tipping fee for twenty years or one million six hundred thousand dollars. Summarized, Energy Development Corporation is proposing the most economical and reliable type of long term NSW disposal service available to Southold. We, as professionals, have examined reasonable alternatives; have selected a turnkey that has definite advantages over any alternative we have found; we have adapted it to the specific needs of Southold, NYDEC, and USEPA regulations; and we propose to set it up as a smaller independent business as the best way to dispose of the 2"SW of Southold over the next twenty to thirty _years. It would be to everyone's advantage for. the Town. to note quic, in order to mnimize the costs. .ore of us can control tnetly iL financial markets, but we can heed the almost unanimous viet,: that "the cost of long terra: money is rising and Grill continue beyond 1981. - ROBERT W. TASKER Town Attorney OFFICE OF TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 425 MAIN ST. GREENPORT, L.I., NEW YORK 11944 Hon. William R. Pell III Supervisor Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Billy: January 29, 1982 v n FEB - 11982 i LJ TO`,�yN OF S0 UTA :O' D TELEPHONE (516) 477-1400 I have received a copy of H. Dombeck's letter to you dated January 26, 1982 with the draft letter to Morris Bruckman with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. I have retyped the letter making very minor changes and the same is enclosed herewith. If it meets with your approval and the ap2roval of the Town Uaa=d, I believe that it can be signed and mailed to Mr. Bruckman. I am sending a copy of this letter together with the revised letter to the Department of Environmental Conservation to Harold Dombeck. RWT:aa enc. Yours very truly, ROBERT W. TASKER WILLIAM R. PELL III SUPERVISOR 4 � Ai � 4 OFFICE ZIF THE SUPERVISOR TOWN' OF.-50UTHOLD MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 January 29, 1982 Mr. Morris Bruckman, P.E. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SUNY, Building 40 Stony Brook, New York 11794 Re: Town of Southold - Consent Order for RCRA Compliance Dear Mr. Bruckman: In accordance with our meeting of January 26, 1982, we are requesting the following: TELEPHONE (516) 765-1800 (516) 765-1939 a. That the meeting of February 8, 1982, be adjourned until such time as a determination has been made regarding a variance of the liner policy for the Town of Babylon. This is in accordance with your recommendation. b. That at such time as the rescheduled meeting for February 8th is held, it should be classified as a compliance monitoring conference rather than a non-compliance conference. As stated at our January 26th meeting, we believe, and you concurred, that we have complied with the previous consent order and are not "in non-compliance" as indicated in the letter of Attorney Scherb of January 5, 1982. c. We are in agreement to enter into a consent order relative to the listing of the Town of Southold on the open dump inventory in accordance with RCRA. In this regard we agree to enter into a consent order with the following conditions, as you have recommended: 1. That the Town of Southold landfill will be removed from the RCRA open dump inventory when the Town has completed the necessary steps to alleviate methane excursion from the northwest corner of its landfill. Mr. Morris Bruckman, P. E. -2- January 29, 1982 2. That the Town of Southold will within six months of the date of execution of the consent order install monitoring for methane gas along the western and northern perimeter of the landfill. 3. On or before October of 1984, the Town will complete a program for the alleviation of methane migration along the northwestern portion of the landfill. This program will consist of either a passive venting system or the extension of the landfill boundary. As you indicated, the intent of the RCRA Lav is to prevent the danger of explosion and that the extension of the landfill boundary by easement, lease or purchase, provided that access to the extended area is limited, contains no structures, and the new boundary is monitored, will bring the facility into compliance with the RCRA provisions. We trust you will find this satisfactory and in accordance with our discussion. Your issuance of a draft consent order in the near future will be most appreci- ated. Yours very truly, William R. Pell III Supervisor 3 JUDITEI T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 December 24, 1981 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 H. A. Dombeck, P. E. Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. 125 Baylis Road Melville, New York 11747 Re: Greenport -Southold 201 Waste - Water Facilities Study Dear Mr. Dombeck: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Board at a regular meeting held on December 22, 1981: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold agrees to the following concepts under the Greenport -Southold 201 Wastewater Facilities Study: (a) Force main from Greenport to resource recovery facility at Cutchogue as solely a Town project. (b) The Scavenger Waste Plant at Greenport will be financed by the Town and construction and operation will be by the Town/or Greenport. (c) A filter press facility will be located at the land- fill site at Cutchogue. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk cc: Mayor Hubbard Greenport Village Board 6�L "_ •�I u�/� �d JrS HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS November 30, 1981 RECEIV'EQ SCG 2 I��i Town Board Town of Southold i-hwn rinrk zOUtFCId Town Hall, Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Village Board Inc. Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, New York 11944 Re: Greenport -Southold 201 Wastewater Facilities Study Gentlemen: Pursuant to our meeting of November 23, 1981, H2M will complete the Selected Plan for submission to NYSDEC and USEPA as soon as we receive your conceptual approval of these alternatives. At our meeting the following alternatives were agreed upon: 1. Not to proceed with sewering the areas surrounding Greenport. 2. Not to proceed with sewering Mattituck. Further, you indicated that the following two concepts will be considered by each Board in the near future. These are: a. Force main from Greenport to resource recovery facility at Cutchogue. This is solely a Town project. b. Scavenger Waste Plant at Greenport. The plant will be financed by the Town. Construction and operation will be by the Town/ or Greenport. Your early review of this matter will be appreciated. A copy of our minutes are enclosed. Very tr y y urs, i� H. A. Do eck, P.E. HAD/pak Enc. cc: Robert Tasker, Esq. James I. Monsell Melville New York • Farmingdale. New York • Riverhead. New York AS `. MEMO TO: FILES FROM: H. A. DOMBECK DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 1981 SUBJECT: MEETING WITH TOWN BOARD, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD VILLAGE BOARD, VILLAGE OF GREENPORT BOB TASKER, WILLIAM GILHOOLY, JIM MONSELL, JACK COUGHLIN TIME: 7:30 - 9:50 PM LOCATION: TOWN HALL, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 1. HAD reviewed alternatives report. He said he wanted conceptual approval to proceed with the selected plan. He reported that DEC is ready to review the project for a grant in February -March of 1982. 2. He reported the costs associated with Greenport sewers. Due to financial outlook and possible lack of funding, it was agreed not to proceed. HAD reported in answer to a question that if finances or aid change it may be possible to have the concept re -recommended. 3. Mattituck Sewer District - Due to cost, possible low federal priority, and lack of specific need, it was agreed not to proceed. H2M will recommend continued monitoring of the area by Suffolk County. 4. Cutchogue Force Main - No decision. Decision to be made on concept by each Board. HAD reported: a. 30 HP estimated power consumption. b. Additional charges to be negotiated between Greenport and Southold for purchase of water. C. Costs: Capital - $3,370,000. Local Share - 12h% - $408,750. Add interest during Construction ±10% 321,250. Total Local Cost - $730,000. 5. Scavenger Plant at Greenport - No decision. Decision to be made in concept by each Board. HAD reported: a. Cost to construct at Cutchogue - $2,100,000. Operating cost is much greater than Greenport. -2- b. Capital Cost - $1,847,000. Interest during Construction - 183,000. Total $2,030,000. Local Cost - 121�g - $230,875. Interest during Construction 183,000. Total $413,875. c. Much controversy generated about revenue to Greenport. HAD reported that the: figure cited was the cost of 23,000 gal. at present cost of treatment. All agreed that there are other costs including: plant depreciation, land rent or purchase. This charge will be negotiated by the parties. HAD said this would have to be in a contract prior to constuction. d. Larry Murdock said that Energy Development would build a centrifuge at Cutchogue for $500,000 that would provide 20% scavenger solids to be burned. The liquid would be used for cooling. e. All parties agreed that H2M should not report a figure for Greenport by Southold. This should be shown with an asterik (*) saying "to be negotiated between the parties". f. HAD explained the Scavenger Waste Improvement District. It would be Southold ;Mainland minus Greenport. It would finance District. Revenues to be generated by charge to truckers. District will have to regulate waste. It must be in place and approved by Audit and Control before the grant is issued. g. HAD said that Southold could construct and operate the plant or Greenport could do it under contract to Southold. 6. HAD was requested to meet with Greenpbrt on December 7th. 7. Supervisor Pell said Southold will consider the concepts at a Board meeting on 11/24/81. HAD/pak cc: Town Board, Town of Southold Village Board, Village of Greenport HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS P.r .._ PG=0 P. MELVILIE, N.Y. 11747 * _'S- 90>;0 December 9, 1981 Supervisor William R. Pell, III and Town Board Members Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Crig, V i% l,g, �.x'y. GOri:, S �• a^� Adg. Date r--., Re: Village of Greenport - Town of Southold 201 Study Gentlemen: As a follow-up to our meeting of November 23rd, I met with the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport on Monday evening, December 7th. The purpose of this meeting was to review the proposed recommendations of the selected plan to gain conceptual approval of same from the Village. My meeting with the Village resulted in the Village Board conceptually agreeing to: a. the construction of a septage facility adjacent to the existing Greenport treatment plant, and b. the construction of a pumping station and force main to provide recycled water to the proposed Cutchogue solid waste incinerator facility. The Village Board has accepted these concepts with the con- dition that subsequent agreements between the Village and the Town permit the Village to construct and operate these facilities for the Town. The agreements would also deal with the Village maintaining or receiving ownership interest in these facilities. In order to maintain the schedule discussed at our November 23rd meeting, the conceptual approval of the Town Board is required. ii L'_X Melville, New York • Farmingdale. New York • Riverhead, New York Supervisor William R. Pell., III and Town Board Members Page Two December 9, 1981 If we receive this approval prior to December 23rd, we will be able to complete the selected plan document by the end of February, 1982. Please advise me if I may be of further assistance in resolving this issue. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHE , McL NDON & MURRELL, P.C. H. A. Dombeck, P.E. - HAD/pak cc: Village of Greenport HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTSand PLANNERS November 30, 1981 RECEIVED - Town Board Town of Southold Town rinrk Southold Town Hall, Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Village Board Inc. Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, New York 11944 Re: Greenport -Southold 201 Wastewater Facilities Stud Gentlemen: Pursuant to our meeting of November 23, 1981, H2M will complete the Selected Plan for submission to NYSDEC and USEPA as soon as we receive your conceptual approval of these alternatives. At our meeting the following alternatives were agreed upon: 1. Not to proceed with sewering the areas surrounding Greenport. 2. Not to proceed with sewering Mattituck. Further, you indicated that the following two concepts will be considered by each Board in the near future. These are: a. Force main from Greenport to resource recovery facility at Cutchogue. This is solely a Town project. b. Scavenger Waste Plant at Greenport. The plant will be financed by the Town. Construction and operation will be by the Town/ or Greenport. Your early review of this matter will be appreciated. A copy of our minutes are enclosed. Very tr y y urs, H.� A. Do eck, P.E. HAD/pak Enc. cc: Robert Tasker, Esq. James I. Monsell Melville, New York • Farmingdale, New York • Riverhead, New York H2M MEMO TO: FILES FROM: H. A. DOMBECK DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 1981 SUBJECT: MEETING WITH TOWN BOARD, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD VILLAGE BOARD, VILLAGE OF GREENPORT BOB TASKER, WILLIAM GILHOOLY, JIM MONSELL, JACK COUGHLIN TIME: 7:30 - 9:50 PM LOCATION: TOWN HALL, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 1. HAD reviewed alternatives report. He said he wanted conceptual approval to proceed with the selected plan. He reported that DEC is ready to review the project for a grant in February -March of 1982. 2. He reported the costs associated with Greenport sewers. Due to financial outlook and possible lack of funding, it was agreed not to proceed. HAD reported in answer to a question that if finances or aid change it may be possible to have the concept re -recommended. 3. Mattituck Sewer District - Due to cost, possible low federal priority, and lack of specific need, it was agreed not to proceed. H2M will recommend continued monitoring of the area by Suffolk County. 4. Cutchogue Force Main - No decision. Decision to be made on concept by each Board. HAD reported: a. 30 HP estimated power consumption. b. Additional charges to be negotiated between Greenport and Southold for purchase of water. C. Costs: Capital - $3,370,000. Local Share - 12�% - $408,750. Add interest during Construction ±10% 321,250. Total Local Cost - $730,000. 5. Scavenger Plant at Greenport - No decision. Decision to be made in concept by each Board. HAD reported: a. Cost to construct at Cutchogue - $2,100,000. Operating cost is much greater than Greenport. R -2- b. Capital Cost - $1,847,000. Interest during Construction - 183,000. Total $2,030,000. Local Cost - 12h% - $230,875. Interest during Construction 183,000. Total $413,875. C. Much controversy generated about revenue to Greenport. HAD reported that the figure cited was the cost of 23,000 gal. at present cost of treatment. All agreed that there are other costs including: plant depreciation, land rent or purchase. This charge will be negotiated by the parties. HAD said this would have to be in a contract prior to constuction. d. Larry Murdock said that Energy Development would build a centrifuge at Cutchogue for $500,000 that would provide 20% scavenger solids to be burned. The liquid would be used for cooling. e. All parties agreed that H2M should not report a figure for Greenport by Southold. This should be shown with an asterik (*) saying "to be negotiated between the parties". f. HAD explained the Scavenger Waste Improvement District. It would be Southold Mainland minus Greenport. It would finance District. Revenues to be generated by charge to truckers. District will have to regulate waste. It must be in place and approved by Audit and Control before the grant is issued. g. HAD said that Southold could construct and operate the plant or Greenport could do it under contract to Southold. 6. HAD was requested to meet with Greenport on December 7th. 7. Supervisor Pell said Southold will consider the concepts at a Board meeting on 11/24/81. HAD/pak cc: Town Board, Town of Southold Village Board, Village of Greenport 1� A T f HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENT I CIENTISTS and PLANNERS r August 18, 1981 AUG 2 ! 1 Mr. Robert Knizek, P.E. c'' New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233 Re: Greenport/Southold 201 Study Alternatives Evaluation and Environmental Assessment Report C-36-1120 - GRSO 77-02 Dear Mr. Knizek: In response to your letter of June 22, 1981, concerning the Alternatives Evaluation and Environmental Assessment Report for the Inc. Village of Greenport and Town of Southold 201 Study, we offer the following responses to your comments. 1. Our recommendation for sewering the four areas surrounding Greenport was based strictly on the need for alternative treatment due to their adverse impact on the environment. Since the writing of the Alternatives Report, an evaluation of the cost analysis indicates possible economic restric- tions obstructing the implementation of the sewering recom- mendations. The financial burden that would be placed on the communities for the construction of such a collection system will be reviewed with the Southold Town Board. Preliminary calculations indicate that the annual cost per household for the construction, operation and maintenance of the new sewers and pump stations is approximately $200.00 based on 75 percent Federal assistance. The homeowners will also be taxed for the use of the sewage treatment plant. Another major economic factor that must be considered is the future availability of funds for collection systems. If collection systems become ineligible for Federal aid, the cost of implementing the sewering program would increase to approximately $650.00 per household. Under this option, the sewering alternative would not be implementable. - Orig. Co;,ies -_/T.C. Witty. Adg. Date Mr. Robert Knizek, P.E. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Page Two August 18, 1981 2, 3 and 4. Based upon conversations between your office and ours, we recommended that the Village of Greenport apply for a waiver of the 85 percent suspended solids removal requirement. Since the writing of this report, the Village has applied for and has received a waiver from this requirement. A re-evaluation of the oxygen requirements imposed by the treated scavenger waste has been completed. Additional aerators will not be required for the existing aerated lagoon, as long as the equalized scavenger waste BOD value of 4,770 mg/l is not drastically exceeded. 5. Commercial scavenger waste volumes were calculated utilizing the survey results which indicated that 32 percent of the total flow during the summer months is due to commercial pump outs. The seasonal variation in commercial flow was then approximated to follow the same trend as the seasonal varia- tion in population. 6. At the time of the Greenport/Southold Alternatives Report writing, no information was available to determine the sca- venger waste flow generated from Shelter Island. We there- fore assumed a flow rate equal to the average of the other four eastern townships. Since the writing of the report, our firm has conducted a survey of waste flows received at Shelter Island landfill. Results indicated present flows to be approximately 2,000 gpd. A future flow based on a septic tank management plan is approximately 3,100 gpd. The design _ year flow is therefore higher than that which was initially estimated in the Alternatives report by.800 gpd. 7. The initial flow calculation under the proposed cesspool and septic tank management plan did not include seasonal homes. Recalculation including seasonal homes increased the flow by 2,200 gpd. We are recommending that seasonal homes be treated as year-round dwelling units, with pump outs re- quired once every three years. By considering the inclusion of seasonal homes into a septic tank management program, and the more recent flow data from Shelter Island, future scavenger waste quantities are approxi- mately 23,000 gpd. This flow increase will raise the con- struction cost slightly of each alternative, but at a pro- portionate rate for each alternative thereby not affecting Mr. Robert Knizek, P.E. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Page Three August 18, 1981 the selection of the most cost-effective treatment plan. Table 5.4, enclosed, has been revised to reflect the costs associated with increased flow. 8. Table 5.4 has also been revised to include an operation and maintenance cost of Greenport STP on Alternatives SW -3 through SW -6. The O&M costs are based on the actual expenses incurred for operation of the existing STP. Labor costs were excluded since it is assumed that additional manpower will not be required to treat the minimal additional flow after it has been pretreated. Manpower has been included in the O&M cost for each of the pretreatment alternatives. 9. Solids concentration of the sludge from the drying beds has not been tested for Greenport. The assumed concentration (40% solids) was referenced from USEPA Technology Transfer, Sludge Treatment and Disposal. Process Design manual. This manual stated that 30-40 percent solids is typical for manual removal of sludge, and 50-60 percent solids can be achieved under the right conditions. 10. A summary of ocean dumping of sludge and trucking sludge to Suffolk County Sewer District No. 1 Treatment Plant at Bergan Point and their associated costs have been enclosed. We will advise you after our next joint meeting with the Town Board, Town of Southold/Board of Trustees, Village of Greenport of the implementability of the various alternatives. Should you have any further questions in the interim, please contact the writer. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. Gar. Loesch, P.E. GEL/pak Enc. cc: Supervisor William R. Mayor George Hubbard Superintendent James Aldo Andreoli, P.E., Pell, III V. Minei, P.E., SCDHS L. Romino, P.E., USEPA I. Monsell John Licata, P.E., NYSDEC Ph.D., SCDHS G. Kline, NYSDEC 1Liii A.L' j . Wit\ GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT SCAVENGER WASTE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES (23,000 gpd) ITEM SW -2 SW -3 SW -4 SW -5 SW -6 SW -7 SW -8 SW -9 Construction Cost - Pretreatment $ 86,000 $ 136,000 $ 136,000 $ 136,000 $ 136,000 $ 136,000 $ 136,000 $ 136,000 - Unit Processes 975,000 457,000 573,000 775,000 588,000 588,000 1,093,000 840,000 - Sludge Handling --- 674,000 573,000 674,000 573,000 674,000 136,000 136,000 - Site Elect., --- 240,000 240,000 278,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 Mobilization,. Piping,etc. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SUB -TOTAL $1,061,000 $1,507,000 $1,522,000 $1,863,000 $1,537,000 $1,638,000 $1,605,000 $1,352,000 Eng., Admin., 286,000 Legal, Contin. 407,000 411,000 503,000 415,000 443,000 433,000 365,000 ( 27% of SUB -TOTAL) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TOTAL CAPITAL COST Amortized Capital Cost O & M Cost TOTAL ANNUAL COST $1,347,000 $1,914,000 $1,933,000 $2,366,000 $1,952,000 128,400 305,000 182,400 184,300 225,500 186,000 102,900 88,800 88,300 66,000 $2,080,000 $2,038,000 $1,717,000 198,300 70,000 194,000 72,000 163,700 70,200 $ 433,400 $ 285,300 $ 273,100 $ 313,800 $ 252,000 $ 268,300 $ 266,000 $ 233,900 NOTES: 1. Amortized over 20 years at 7-1/8% interest (CRF = .095323). 2. Base year 1980; ENR Cost Index = 3,130, January , 1980. 3. Costs are based on 23,000 gpd (7 day/week). Should areas recommended for sewering not be sewered, then the design flow is expected to increase by approximately 600 gpd. The resulting costs would increase by approximately 3 percent. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS August 14, 1981 Mayor George Hubbard Inc.Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, New York 11944 i OWN Of SO 1_ 1tl QLD Re: Greenport-Southold/Shelter Island Public Participation Program GRSH 81-01 Dear Mayor Hubbard: We enclose herewith seven copies of Amendment No. 3 to our Agreement dated November 14, 1977. This Amendment is for the Public Participation Program for the on-going 201 Study. The local costs for this program were previously approved by the Village Board and the Towns of Shelter Island and Southold. Please execute all seven copies and transmit same to Southold and Shelter Island for the respective signatures. After all the necessary signatures have been obtained, one fully executed copy may be retained by the Village and each of the two Towns. Please submit the remaining four (4) copies to our office. Should any questionE: arise, please contact our office. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. Gar E. Loesch, P.E. GEL/Pak Enc. cc: Supervisor William R. Pell, III Supervisor M. Barbara Keyser Superintendent James I. Monsell (" s ___1 , -_ r Codes"�'•,-- PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD/INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT NOTtCE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 35.917 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency Regulations, that a public meeting will be held on July 14, 1981 at 7:30 PM, prevailing time, at the Town Hall, Town of Southold, Main Road, Southold, New York, for the purpose of presenting the "Alterna- tives Evaluation and Environmental Assessment Report of the Greenport -Southold 201 Study Area". This study reviews exist- ing and projected wastewater/scavenger waste problems, structural and non-structural alternatives, such as construc- tion of scavenger waste treatment facilities and recommends implementation of various alternatives within the study area. The report is available for public examination at the Southold Town Clerk's office, Southold Town Hall and the Greenport Village Clerk's office, Greenport Village Hall on or about June 12, 1981. DATED: June 9, 1981 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NANCY W. COOK VILLAGE CLERK VILLAGE OF GREENPORT 1 ROBERT (: HOLZMACHER, P.E., P.P., L.S SAMUEL C- McLENDON, P.E. °-. H2M Corp . NORMAN E. MURRELL, P.E. HAROLD A DOMBECK,PE. HUGO D.FREUDENTHAL.Ph D. HOLZMACHER,McLENDON andMURRELL,P.C. CARL E.BECKER,PE. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS JOHN J. MOLLOY, P.E. DONALD A. SIOSS. P.. RECEIVED 575 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD, MELVILLE. NY 11747 (516) 694-3040 GARY E. LOESCH. P.E. BRIJ M. SHRIVASTAVA, P E 125 B.AYLIS ROAD, MELVILLE NY 11 747 (516) 752-9060 D CHARLES E BANKS. P.E. 375 FULTON STREET, FARMINGDALE, NY 11735 (516) 694-;+410 C APR 1 nCl J 209 WEST MAIN STREET, RIVERHEAD. NY 11901 (516) 727-34800 TELECOPIER dex 4100 (516) 752-9067 Town Clerk Southold Town Board 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Gentlemen: March 26, 1981 To enhance our service to you in providing complete lab- oratory services for your analytical needs, H2M has added a new Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer (GC/Mass Spec). The GC/Mass Spec does two things: 1) it efficiently verifies the presence of organic compounds in your sample, and 2) identifies which organic compounds they are. This equipment in conjunction with its computer library of over 30,000 compounds, detects and quantifies organic pollutants even when multiple compounds are too similar to be differentiated by standard organic analysis. It is the only available technique to identify a wide variety of compounds in many different matrices and in the presence of interfering compounds. GC/Mass Spec analysis together with metal analyses and wet chemistry is used by H2M to analyze for the 100+ priority pollutants defined by USEPA. Although the standards do not yet exist for water suppliers, these tests can allay fears about contamination of the supply. Please let me know if you would like more information about this new capability or if we can be of further assistance. Very truly yours, H2M CORPORATION John J. Molloy, P.E.?� Laboratory Co -Director JJM:jm I�d H2M Corp. HOLZMACHER,McLENDONandMURRELL,P.C.- CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS March 27, 1981 Mr. James I. Monsell Superintendent of Utilities Inc. Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, New York 11944 Re: Greenport -Southold 201 Study Dear Mr. Monsell: ROBERT G HO[ MACHf P P E P P L J SAMUfI C W f NPON P f NORMAN f MURHf I I P f HAROLD A DUMBfCR Pf HUGOO FRfUOfNINAl Ph D CART E HE Chf R Pt JOHN J MOI I OY P I. OONAf O A SOSS PF GARY f l Of,,, E+ P ( f1RIJM SHHIVA1,1AVA Pf CHARIISE HANK, Pf We recently submitted copies of the Draft Report entitled "Alternatives Evaluation and Environmental Assessment" for the Greenport -Southold 201 Study area. Please insert the enclosed two (2) copies of Figure 4.25 within your reports. This figure supercedes that which was previously incorporated in the Draft Report. If any questions arise, please contact our office. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. Gary E. Loesch, P.E. GEL/pak Enc. cc: Supervisor William R. Pell, III VI -JI, John Licata, P.E. Robert Knizek, P.E. Gary Kline Carl Lingard, P.E. Vito Minei, P.E. Aldo Andreoli, Ph.D., P.E. MAR 3 01981 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. MEMO TO: Robert Knizek, P.E., NYSDEC, Albany Gary Kline, NYSDEC, Albany John Licata, P.E., NYSDEC, Stony Brook Carl Lingard, P.E., USEPA Dr. Aldo Andreoli, P.E., SCDHS FROM: Gary E. Loesch, P.E. % DATE: March 18, 1981 MAR 20 1981 SUBJECT: Greenport -Southold 201 Study ` a. a�.a9��y i9 G,J s 3 ca w.y i We enclose herewith a DRAFT copy of the "Alternatives Evaluation and Environmental Assessment Report" for the Greenport -Southold 201 Study area. Our current schedule indicates that a public meeting will be scheduled for May -1-981. Consequently, we plan on reviewing our conclusions and recommendations with representatives from Greenport and Southold during the early part of April. Your timely review of the enclosed in accordance with this schedule is greatly appreciated. GEL/pak Enc. CC: Supervisor William R. Pell, III Mayor George Hubbard Superintendent James I. Monsell Vito Minei, P.E., SCDHS mo, G:•p File a JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY Southold, L. I., N. Y. 11971 November 10, 1980 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Mayor George Hubbard Village of Greenport Village Hall - Third Street Greenport, New York 11944 Dear Mayor Hubbard: The Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted the following resolution at a regular meeting held on November 6, 1980: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes Greenport Village Mayor George Hubbard to execute EPA form 5700-41, Cost or Price Summary Format for Subagreements Under U. S. EPA Grants, in connection with the Public Participation Program for the Greenport-Southold/Shelter Island 201 Study; said Public Participation Program to cost the Town of Southold approximately $800.00. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Town Clerk cc: Gary E. Loesch, P.E. Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. 1 H 2M Corp. HOLZMACHER,McLENDONand MURRELL,P.C. b y _ CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS )A, MEL,.' CHARLES E. BANKS. =A AGDAiL i; yet _ I OCT 2 g r a g 370 ROBERT G. HOLIMACHER. P E., P.R. L.S. SAMUEL C. McLENDON. P.E. NORMAN E. MURRELL, P.E. HAROLD A. QOMBECK. P.E. HUGO D. FREUDENTHAL, Ph. D. CARL E. BECKER. P E. JOHN J. MOLLQY, P E. DONALD A. SIOSS. P E. GARY E. lOESCH. P E. BRIJ M. SHRIVASTAVA. P.E. PE, October 28, 1980 Supervisor William Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York R. Pell, III 11971 Re: Greenport-Southold/Shelter Island 201 Study Public Participation Program - C-36-1120 Dear Supervisor Pell: Pursuant to our joint meeting with representatives of United States Environmental Protection Agency and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, our office is pleased to provide you with a proposal to perform the following tasks. Task 1 - Attend two (2) public meetings and one public hearing. Task 2 - Prepare agency responsiveness summaries (one summary after each of the two public meetings and a final summary after the public hearing. Task 3 - Prepare and submit 25 copies of the fact sheets to the Public Participation Coordinator for further distribution within the Towns of Southold and Shelter Island and the Village of Greenport. (Necessary revisions will be made due to change in coordination efforts.) Task 4 - Prepare and submit 25 copies of the Workplan to the Public Participation Coordinator for further distribution within the Towns of Southold and Shelter Island and the Village of Greenport. (Necessary revisions will be made due to changes in the Workplan.) Adg, Date File HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. Supervisor William R. Pell, III Page Two October 28, 1980 Task 5 - Provide consultation and respond to questions raised by the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). H2M will meet with the Committee upon request if authorization is granted by the three municipalities. (Estimate: 1 engineering hour every two weeks.) Due to the reductions in the scope of work, we have reduced our fees for the above referenced services to $9,829.00. A breakdown is shown on the attached table. If the enclosed meets with your joint approval, please authorize Mayor Hubbard to execute the enclosed 5700-41 and advise ou-- office accordingly. If any questions arise, please contact the writer. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. e7eE�.�Loesch, P.E. GEL/lma encs. cc: Mayor George Hubbard Councilman Lawrence Murdock, Jr. Superintendent James Monsell Supervisor M. Barbara Keyser COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FOR SUBAGREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA GRANTS Form Approved (See <,c•c•ompanying instructions before Completing this form) 0h1B No. 158-RO144 PARTI•GENERAL 1. GRANTEE 2. GRANT NUMBER INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT C-36-1120 3. NAME OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR A. DATE OF PROPOSAL HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. MAY 30, 1980 5. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR (Include ZIP code) 6. TYPE OF SERVICE TO BE FURNISHED 201 WASTEWATER FACILITY 575 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD STUDY (Public Participation MELVILLEr- NEW YORK 11747 Program) CPFF PART II -COST SUMMARY _ 7. DIRECT LABOR (Specify tabor categories) ESTI- MATED HOURLY ESTIMATED TOTALS HOURS RATE COST See Exhibits for Labor Breakdown $ i 2,74 SalarExcalation Purim period' #s} , of erfornance - 18 months at 7%/year = 5.25%14 DIRECT LABOR TOTAL: $ 2886. r s. INDIRECT COSTS (Specify indirect cost pools) RATE x BASE = ESTIMATED$3n! COST Tn 1 a" INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL: 9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS ESTIMATED 6. TRAVEL COST I TRANSPORTATION / 1 es Lq 2ui�7mile $ 22 'Ct�` 4t (2) PER DIEM ' i1� TRA.VEI_ SUBTOTAL: t?'*214'Tt'1'"'W wd� i 222. Al1 _• $ a '- b. EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (Specify categories) QTY COST ESTIMATED COSTT g /} ZE> 1:; $ 100. i Y " EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL: ,t," r a 100 ; 31HI a i t1 C. SUBCONTRACTS ESTIMATED COST SUBCONTRACTS SUBTOTAL "a ' <,< $ d. OTHER (Specify categories) ESTIMATED COST \t� OTHER! y •?c;, i ' ? ', S 322. e.1 OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL: ��' �„,;_ ? _ 10. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 8 547,. 11. PROFIT $ 14-282. 12. TOTAL PRICE 9 829 . EPA Form 5700-I1 (2.76) rAur. i ur, 3 r-. +re i110. 144-N PART 111 -PRICE SUMMARY 11� COMPETITOR'S CATALOG LISTINGS. IN-HOUSE ESTIMATES. PRIOR QUOTES MARKET PROPOSEO (Indicate boo/e for Price c~4xrleun) PRIGEISI PRICE i PART IV -CERTIFICATIONS 14. CONTRACTOR 14.. HAS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDERALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVI&W OP YOUR ACCOUNT16 OR RECOROA IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT OR CONTRACT WITHIN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHSI 6 vEs [] No (it "Yeo" give name address and tetoohone number of reviewing office) DCAA Garden City, New York (516) 7111-8000 14b.THIA SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COAT PRINCIPLES 40 CFR 30-700 I 14.. This proposal is submitted for use in connitction with and in response to (1) Public Participation Requirements of Facility Plan , This is to certify to the beat of my knowledge and belief Mat the cost and pricing data summarized herein are complete, current, and accurate as of (?)i June 20, 7 9 8 0 and that a financial management capability exists to fully and accu- rately account for the financials transactions under this project. 1 further certify that I uadeititand that the subagreement price may be subjact to downward renegotiation and/or recoupment where the above cost and pricing data have been determined, as a result of audit, not to have been complete, current and accurate as of the date above. (3) Jube 20, 1980 DATE OF EXECUTION 210NATUR9 OF PROPOSIR Vice President TITLK OF PROPOSER 14. GRANTEE REVIEWER I certify that I have reviewed the cost/pnce summary set forth herein and the proposed costs/price 4App6►ur acceptable for cubaeroement award. OATS OF ElkCUTION e19NATUAR OF N<VILWaR • TITLC Oh N[VIVWER 16. EPA REVIEWER (/t sppttvabte) _ter OATS OF C)IRCUTION SIGNATUNC OF NEVICWKR TITLE OF REVIEWER EPA Fuen. 5700.41 (246) PAGE 2 OF 6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM GREENPORT-SOUTHOLD/SHELTER ISLAND 201 FACILITY PLAN LABOR REQUIREMENTS BY ACTIVITY Activity DIRECT Labor TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL Category 1 2 3 4 5 HOURS SALARY DOLLARS Project Manager 24 12 - - 4 40 $19.50 $ 780.00 Engineer 24 48 16 16 39 143 10.00 1,430.00 Tech. Editor/Aide - 12 8 8 - 28 6.75 189.00 Typist 4 24 4 4 8 44 4.50 198.00 Jr. Draftsman - 12 - - - 12 4.25 51.00 Reproduction 2 12 4 4 - 22 4.25 94.00 TOTALS 54 120 32 32 51 289 $2,742.00 M JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS Southold, L. I., N. Y. 11971 INFORMATION MEETING April 14, 1981 4:30 P.M. TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, VILLAGE OF GREENPORT RE: GREENPORT-SOUTHOLD 201 WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN Present: H2M-- Harold Dombeck, P.E. Gary Loesch, P.E. Town of Southold -- Supervisor William R. Pell, III Councilman Henry W. Drum Councilman John J. Nickles Councilman Lawrence Murdock, Jr. Councilman Francis J. Murphy Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker Highway Superintendent Raymond C. Dean Village of Greenport -- Robert Webb, Deputy Mayor Samuel Katz, Trustee John F. Coughlin, Treasurer Nancy Cook, Village Clerk Alan Smith, Village Attorney James Monsell, Superintendent of Utilities Also Present: Tim Gould, Suffolk Times Ruth Oliva, North Fork Environmental Council Frank Bear GREENPORT-SOUTHOLD 201 WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN (C-36-1120) ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT 1. Non -Structural Alternatives a. Optimization of the Greenport S.T.P. b. Land Use Control C. Fertilizer Control d. Water Supply Management Plan e. Septic Tank Management Plan f. Alternative On-site sewage disposal methods 2. Structural Alternatives a. Expansion of the Greenport Collection System 1. Sterling Easin 2. Pipes Cove 3. Conkling Point 4. North Greenport b. Sewering of the Mattituck Area C. Scavenger waste treatment and disposal d. Ultimate sludge disposal PAGE 2 - H2M, SOUTHOLD, GREENPORT - APRIL 14, 1981 HAROLD DOMBECK, P.E., Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C.: This is a study that the Town and the Village commissioned under a federal - state grant about three and a half years ago with the intention on the Town's part of participating in a plan that would lead to practices or recommendations that would perhaps minimize the need for sewering, and the Village's intention when they entered into it was to provide for planning within the Village should additional enlargements be needed for the point that would be covered by federal and state grants. The original cost at that time was about $90,000.00 total which was supported by federal and state grants of 87% so that the local share was something on the order of about $10,000.00 and was split 60/40 between the Town and the Village. After the study was started--70/30?--the exact percentages I can look up if somebody wished them. After the study started, which was done under something called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, a 1972 law, the law also contained a section, the one we are working under, Section 201, called 208 and you are all familiar with the 208 Study and it got it's name from Section 208 of the law. There is also a section called 303 and all these different sections provide different kinds of aid. But the 208 Study caused a major delay in this 201 Study, because the intention of 208 was to provide very broad guidelines for all planning that took place on the Island and while the intention of 208 as defined by EPA was not to hold up 201 Studies, here on Long Island, because of the sensitivity of our groundwater and the very direct relationship between our waste manage- ment practices and our groundwater, basically put a hold on all 201 planning throughout Nassau and Suffolk Counties. There are three documents, three basic documents, that are completed or will be completed under this study. The first one was done about two years ago and basically was a data report. It summarized things such as population, environmental factors, land use, zoning, predicted populations in the future and had all the background data that was utilized. This is the second of three documents. This document now takes the data, defines the specific problems which we go into and sets our a series of two types of recommendations or alternatives. Structural alternatives, that which basically requires concrete and dollars and non-structural alternatives, that which is a way to manage the environment for what is being put into the groundwater in such a way that it does not become a problem and you do that either through legislative practices, such as zoning or ordinances, or through an education process. One of our major problems here is fertilizer management which we will talk about in a few minutes. So we come up with a whole list of alternatives and in conclusion we have recommended certain specific structural and non-structural alternatives. Now, what we wish to accomplish, and we'll go into all the alternatives in a minute or two here, is basically we need to hold,under the federal regulations, a public meeting in which we need to have thirty days notice to the public,between the Town and the Village, so that the public at large can consider this document and then as a result of that meeting, the two Boards concur or not concur and direct us to develop a specific alternative. Now, when you do that there is no obligation on the part even if you tell us, yes, we agree or you don't agree that you want another alternative. A different treatment plant, for instance. There's no obligation here to construct or do anything. The obligation here is only to complete the study. Then the last document dealing with the specific PAGE 3 - H2M, SOUTHOLD, GREENPORT - APRIL 14, 1981 alternative or plan is developed and that happens very quickly, in a period of weeks and then the study is completed. At that point in time there is a public hearing held on the documents so that the input of the public again is put into the final recommendation that is fully developed and again there is no obligation to construct or do anything. But at that point you've completed the study and should you wish to implement the recommenda- tions you are then eligible for the 87% federal and state grants for the design and construction, principally I know the Town's interest is in scavenger waste management. So that the recommenda- tions and actions that we're looking for from the two boards here are not binding in any way towards your construction, but only to the extent of completing this report. That basically is the goal of this study and one thing I just want to go back to for a second and that is that after we were into the study about a year there was an amendment to the study --actually there were two amendments to the study --but as far as the Town was concerned the State Department of Environmental Conservation issued or required that the Town get a permit from the state to dispose of its scavanger waste, which the Town did obtain, and the permit had two courses of action in it. One course of action was that if the Town did not enter into a federal grant process for the solution to scavenger waste, that it must construct in a very short order of time, within a year or less, a treatment plant for scavenger waste. In which case the Town would have had to lay that money out a hundred cents on the dollar. The Town's choice at that point in time, in discussion with the Boards was to enter into the federal process, while it is a lengthy process and complicated and sometimes it seems to go on and on, it does provide 75% federal aid and a minimum of 122% state aid. So that there was an addition to the study put on that delt with scavenger waste in the Town that was on the order of about $22,000.00, total cost of which the Town will have a final local share of 122% or about $2,400.00 roughly of which the Town is paying the total portion of that because scavenger waste comes from unsewered homes and the Village is basically sewered and there is no scavenger waste from the Village. What we would like to do in the next let's say twenty or thirty minutes is give you an overview of all the alternatives that we looked at, which were addressed in the report and then finally corning to the conclusion or the recommendations that we see that the Town adopt or suggest to us to finalize --the Town and the Village together. This is a joint effort and you will see that the problem involves the entire Township, including the Village. Not only scavanger waste but some of the other problems that are here. So I would like, at this point in time, to have Gary Loesch from our office basically brief you on the different alternatives, what the problems were, what the alternatives were that were available to resolve these problems and then finally what the specific recommendations are that we're seeing. GARY LOESCH, P.E., Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C.: Basically what I did is I prepared a one sheet summary of the non-structural and structural alternatives that we investigated in this report. What I've done on the sheet is just summarize the headings and I will give you the information as I touch on each of the items. Basically I'll touch base on the non-structural alternatives. The Village of Greenport is currently sewered and it has a aerated PAGE 4 - H2M, SOUTHOLD, GREENPORT - APRIL 14, 1981 lagoon sewage treatment plant rated at about 500,000 gallons a day. This plant currently is operating about half of its capacity, approximately 250,000 gallons a day. As part of the evaluation of the treatment plant we examined performance reports of the sewage treatment plant in accordance with what the state requires the plants need. In other words, it issues a SPEDES permit which requires that the discharge meets certain limits. We evaluated the plant in accordance with those limits and basically what we concluded, that is the result of that evaluation, was that some sort of waiver of the suspended solids requirement in terms of federal requirements required 85% solids removal. We feel that the plant should consistently obtain about 80% removal. We feel that either a waiver of that requirement or upgrading of the plant to require better than 85% would be required. However, down stream of this, and I will discuss this in a few minutes, we were also looking at scavenger waste options and one of the options was to construct a scavenger waste treatment facility at Greenport. I will touch base back on this option a little bit later. On land use controls, basically this category is geared toward new development. All development with total flows on the order of 30,000 gallons per day or greater are required by Suffolk County Department of Health Services to require waste water manage- ment subsurface systems by some sort of conventional means. What we indicated in the report was that the 30,000 gallons a day limit should even be lowered in light of some of the concerns in regards to protection of ground water supply, also regards to quantity and and quality and that the Town should really consider a lowering of the standards --something on the order of 20,000 gallons per day. With regards to fertilizer control, we evaluated the total nitrogen input into the groundwater aquifers in all of Southold and the Village of Greenport. This evaluation indicated approximately 75% of the nitrogen getting into the groundwater is from fertilizers applied to agricultural areas and about 122% is due to lawn fertilizer and an additional 122% is due to onsite septic systems. So, fertilizer control is a very important issue in the sense that current farming programs that released some data that was developed during the 208 Study indicates that the majority of agricultural tracts or farms that said the fertilizer is applied very intensively in a single application with a slight brushing later on, maybe two months into the growing season another application. What Cornell University in cooperation with the Cooperative Extension Service in Riverhead has delt with a program where you can actually obtain similar yield by applying the fertilizer equally between the two applications as opposed to a heavy application initially. What this does is, for example, a day like today with heavy rainfall why some of you fertilized over the weekend, the majority of the nitrogen from that fertilizer ends up in the groundwater and not very much goes to the crop. By having more applications of the fertilizer and less in each application, you lessen the impact of a rain event affecting a nitrogen application. Another item that was looked at was composting of clippings, providing an area where clippings could be brought so that they could be composted on a more regional level With regard to water supply management, we are recommending that a program of using existing observation wells and also surface water sampling to assure that development as it occurs and existing PAGE 5 - H2M, SOUTHOLD, GREENPORT - APRIL 14, 1981 developments, in terms of what impact that has on the groundwater within Southold. Basically this program, in addition to observation wells, would include increased control over irrigation water. Currently about 60% of the water pumped out of Southold is utilized on farms. There are no requirements currently on farmers to limit that amount of pumpage on a daily basis or even on an annual basis. Another item that we are currently still reviewing is the increase of quantity of recharge back into the aquifers. Currently Greenport has the only sewage treatment facility within this 201 Study area and we are examining the groundwater recharge of that waste as opposed to sound disposal. The last item as the report indicates, various conservation measures which should be undertaken to try to reduce the amount of water used by residential and commercial establishments. Two more sections within non-structural alternatives, one being septic tank management plan which I would prefer to talk about that particular plan after I speak about scavanger waste treatment and disposal. I will defer that until later and the last category is our alternative on-site sewage disposal methods. Basically what we evaluated in this ection was the various alternatives that many people have developed across the nation and in other countries as regards to disposing of sewage, using other systems such as composting toilets, dry toilets, etc. Our basic feeling is that for existing establishments these are not viable. With new facilities and new developments, it's something to consider based on public acceptance or the lack of public acceptance in other areas, we don't feel that this is the solution. With regard to structural alternatives the report evaluated all areas within Greenport and Southold with regard to need for sewer.and based on the evaluation of all Southold and Greenport, we recommended four additional areas in the vicinity of Greenport be sewered. We evaluated, as I said, within Southold. The Mattituck area we examined very closely and at this time we are not recommend- ing sewering of Mattituck. Let me speak about the extension of the Greenport collection system first then I'll address the Mattituck issue. As far as Greenport, as indicated earlier, they're operating about 250,000 gallons per day. The four areas are Sterling Basin, which is slightly east of Greenport, Pipes Cove and Conklin Point, which is to the west of Greenport and North Greenport, which is north of Greenport, all indicate areas in need of sewering and that the combined flow from these areas is approximately 90,000 gallons per day. The existing Greenport sewage treatment plant does have the capacity to take these additional areas in. We also examined the Village as to the existing collection district in terms of vacant parcels; as these parcels develop, what's the flow to meet the need there. Again our conclusion is that the existing Greenport plant does have the capacity for these additional areas. With regard to the Mattituck area, based on population density alone, the area is marginal in terms of sewering needs. We looked at it very intensively, we feel that there is a strong influx of nitrogen into this area from the surrounding farming areas. It is difficult to assess exactly what percentage in a given area comes from onsite systems or what comes from fertilizers. In this area we feel that a monitoring program would give us additional information to protect the groundwater supplies from onsite systems and it shows that the number one cause of nitrates in this area is onsite septic systems. PAGE 6 - H2M, SOUTHOLD, GREENPORT - APRIL 14, 1981 It shows that it's not the fertilizer control program which will help reduce the amount of nitrogen into the groundwater in this area. In the report that we did look at structural alternatives for Mattituck from the standpoint of giving you an idea of what it would cost if Mattituck were sewered. All of Mattituck, if sewered, would account for about 500,000 gallons per day. We are talking about a flow equivalent to what the Greenport sewage treatment plant was designed for. So we looked at pumping at Greenport and also treating the flow at Mattituck. In either case, it would cost something on the order of one point eight million dollars to construct a facility in Mattituck and it was not recommended. With regard to scavenger waste treatment and disposal, we calculated, we performed a survey at the Town landfill and also performed a survey over at the Shelter Island landfill. We evaluated the quantities of scavenger waste that come into the two towns. As you know, Greenport is sewered but there are no scavenger wastes currently generated by the Village. Our projections indicate that the quantity of scavenger waste from Southold be on the order of 17,000--roughtly 18,000 gallons per day by the design year of 2005. In addition we anticipated approximately 2000 gallons per day from Shelter Island. The reason why I mention Shelter Island is, Shelter Island is in the 201 program and one of the reasons why they came into the 201 program was that they are seeking a joint solution with the Town of Southold with regard to scavenger waste. We are still evaluating separate facilities for Shelter Island in the 201 report that we are currently doing for Shelter Island but in terms of the Greenport/Southold report we evaluated scavenger waste with Shelter Island and without it. In terms of the cost to the Town, it is slightly cheaper to go with Shelter Island. The recommended treatment process for Southold scavenger waste was to truck the waste to Greenport, to construct holding, equalization, and screening facilities at Greenport. These facilities then would be followed by primary clarification with an attempt to get the solids and reduce the biological oxygen demand of ;the waste stream down by using chemicals and then allowing to settle out. The follow-up process to this is the rotating biological disc basically to reduce the which normally is about twenty times stronger than sewage, down to the level of sewage. We are talking about approximately 95% of reduction in both solids and biological oxygen demand. Once it's at that strength it is felt that the existing treatment plant can handle the additional flow which would be on the order of twenty thousand gallons per day. With regard to the Greenport facility we also recommend that a filter be put --that a sand filter be installed at Greenport to prevent any solids upset of the plant and as a result prevent solids from being discharged into Long Island Sound. I mentioned earlier that we looked at optimization of the Greenport plant. If the scavenger waste facility is not constructed at Greenport we will proceed with an attempt to obtain a waiver of the suspended solids requirement, or at least a reduction instead of that waiver. The reduction of the suspended solid procedure will require a bond for Greenport. However, based on the recommendation that the scavenger waste also go there, we feel that the sand filter should be constructed at Greenport if the scavenger waste goes to Greenport, which was our recommendation. The sludge from the Greenport facility has been examined. We PAGE 7 - H2M, SOUTHOLD, GREENPORT - APRIL 14, 1981 are talking now about the sludge that would be generated by both the existing facility and the proposed scavenger waste processes. We recommended that this sludge be digested and that the existing sludge drying beds be expanded and the ultimate sludge disposal was recommended to go to the Town landfill assuming that the Town landfill or a section of the Town landfill will be lined at that time. If the lined landfill is not available or if the state's policy has not changed by that time in regard to lining the land- fill then composting will be the less cost effective to deal with the sludge. The cost of scavenger waste treatment as outlined are on the order of one point six six nine million dollars. This reduces down to a local cost which is estimated at 1227o due to the fact that you would anticipate federal and state funding on the order of 872%. The local cost would be $159,100.00, amortizing this cost over twenty years, the local cost on an annual basis would approximate $20,000.00. In addition to this there would be operating and maintenance costs for the treatment plant which are estimated at about $54,000.00 resulting in a total cost on the order of $73,000.00 to $74,000.00 per year. This cost would be offset then by the cost of using the facility which a typical charge which is charged at most facilities on Long Island is a penny per gallon. For every gallon that's dumped the carter would be charged a penny to dump that waste per gallon which in turn the homeowner or commercial establishment would be charged that disposal fee. I mentioned earlier a septic tank management plan and this is a good time to talk about that. When we are speaking about scavenger waste, in order that we can --or two things --in order that we can insure that the groundwater be protected and in order to make this scavenger waste treatment plant a viable alternative, a spetic tank management plan is required by the state in order to enter into this alternative. Essentially what it means is that it gives the towns some control over requiring regular pumping of homeowners and commercial establishments on- site septic systems. By regular, I mean once every three years is recommended in the report. Every homeowner would be required to have their septic system pumped on the order of once every three years, the waste would then be trucked to the disposal facility. I think that pretty much sums up the recommendations of the report. Everything is detailed in the report in terms of the data that was used, the methodology, the various alternatives. For example, we evaluated eleven different scavenger waste alter- natives. I only explained to you one of those eleven that was recommended there. There are many more in there. There are land application ones, marsh pond systems, many different biological systems either at Greenport or in a central location around Southold. The one I spoke about is the recommended one and also the most important effectively. I would be glad to answer any questions. (General questions and answers followed). Adjourned 5:20 P.M. j. • H2M Corp. HOLZMACHER,McLENDONand MURRELL,P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS • x September 8, 1980 009. Copies / T.C. 'i' TA t/ �tv. Adg. Date File —=- Mayor George Hubbard Inc. Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, New York 11944 RHNfriI'. ,-ol:MA, H1H I I PP I S ',MIA t i h1t t l Ni )ON P l HAHh14N t h I f f HAhul II \ I!ONIMhtitl I I A 110 D I I t N I k`h D t;HI t Ht ,-htt H H t' JthiN , h.0 I uY P I WNA; II A t rAHY i l Ot :,+ H I' t 11019 fa�HN•�blA4A Pl c}IA it t r t NA.NhJ r I ANIHI'NV to hlilNl Hutt' H I Jl f l ii' A A HAW NIAN Pt Re: Greenport-Southold/Shelter Island 201 Study Public Participation Program - C-36-1120 GRSO 78-01/SHIS 80-01 Dear Mayor Hubbard: On June 30, 1980, we submitted a Public Participation Program to USEPA for their review and approval pursuant to their re- quest. Since that time, we have met with them to discuss the program in greater detail. It was suggested at this meeting that the number of newsletters (Task 2) could be decreased from nine (9) to three (3). A cost reduction in the program results from this decrease in Task 2 as shown on the attached sheets. This program is required by USEPA and NYSDEC as a grant condi- tion. Additional information is also enclosed which describes the membership of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) which is part of the Public Participation Program. You will be re- quired to establish a CAC based on the suggested membership. In addition, your approval of this program is required in order to process the grant increase. The final local share of this project is 121-2i of $19,242.00 or $2,405.00. This local portion should be shared by the Village and the Towns of Southold and Shelter Island. With the formation of a CAC, expenses will be incurred by the Grantee and the CAC. As indicated in the attachment (Federal Register Vol. 44 No. 34 pages 10295-296), the Grantee is responsible to provide an operating budget (i.e. paper, postage, etc.), clerical assistance, out-of-pocket expenses (transporta- tion) and a day-to-day staff contact. These costs, once esti- mated, should be incorporated as part of the grant increase and should be eligible for Federal and State funding. At your request, we would assist you in preparing this estimate. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. Mayor George Hubbard Page Two September 8, 1980 We appreciate your early review ofthe enclosed and would be pleased to meet with you should any questions arise. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. Gary E. Loesch, P.E. GEL/pak Encls. cc: Supervisor Barbara Keyser Supervisor William R. Pell, III Carl Lingard, P.E. Joseph Morris Robert G. Knizek, P.E. James I. Monsell + HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FACT SHEET GREENPORT-SOUTHOLD/SHELTER ISLAND SECTION 201 WASTEWATER FACILITY STUDY WHAT IS A 201 FACILITY PLAN? In response to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) and the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217) a nationwide program is now underway to eliminate water pollu- tion by improving and/or constructing wastewater treatment facilities. Since the study must conform to Federal and State require- ments, it has been designated a "201 Facility Plan". The name comes from Section 201 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments Of 1972 (PL 92-500), which provides funding for planning and construction of municipal wastewater treatment facilities, under regulations promulgated by the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and administrated by the New York State Department of Environ- mental Conservation (NYSDEC). The 201 process consists of three ( 3 ) steps: Step I - Facility Plan Step II - Design Step III - Construction The approval to proceed with Step I facility planning was received by the Inc. Village of Greenport from the USEPA and NYSDEC. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. The objective of the Step I facility planning is to select the best of many structural and non-structural wastewater alternatives, in order to alleviate the existing wastewater disposal problems in the most environmentally acceptable and implementable manner. The Inc. Village of Greenport and Towns of Southold and Shelter Island have decided to participate in the Federal programs above. The Inc. Village of Greenport will administer the study of the local wastewater needs in the study area. This study is bring conducted by the Consulting Engineering Firm of Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C., of Melville, New York. It will determine the best way to improve the existing wastewater treatment facilities within the area, as necessary, and meet the wastewater needs of those areas currently not sewered, in accordance with State and Federal regulations. PLANNING AREA The study area initially included the North Fork Drainage Basin which consisted of the entire Township of Southold except Robins, Gull, Plum and Fisher's Islands and a very small portion of Southold that borders the Town of Riverhead (approx. 3,500 feet east of Riverhead) and lies within the Riverhead -Southampton Drainage Basin. Since 1977, there have been two modifications to the existing project. Amendment No. 1 (1978) modified the scope of the study to include the evaluation of scavenger waste treat- ment and disposal alternatives. In 1979, the Town HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. of Shelter Island joined with the Town of Southold - Inc. Village of Greenport to evaluate joint efforts to treat and dispose of scavenger waste. Incorporation of Shelter Island into the ongoing Greenport Southold 201 Study was submitted as Amendment No. 2 in 1979. NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Only a small portion of the current study area population, namely the Inc. Village of Greenport and the Shelter Island Heights Association are served by sewage treatment plants. The remainder of the study area disposes of their sanitary wastes primarily via on-site sub -surface septic systems. Groundwater on the North Fork of Long Island is recharged primarily by rainfall, with the majority of it being eventually discharged as underflow into Long Island Sound and the surrounding bays and estuaries. The only other form of recharge is from cesspools or leaching systems and these contribute heavily to contamination due to nitrates and other parameters. As a result, sewers may be required in some areas to protect the fragile water supply. Scavenger waste is the waste generated by on-site sub- surface treatment/leaching systems such as cesspools and septic tanks. The settled sludge on the bottom of a septic tank or cesspool must be removed periodically to prevent solids build- up which can cause clogging and premature failure of the system. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. This waste is collected from homes, restaurants and other com- mercial establishments in the study area by scavenger haulers. Presently, scavenger waste is disposed of at the individual Townships landfill sites within Southold and Shelter Island by open landfill dumping. This poses serious public health problems due to leachate, vectors and potential spread of pathogens by wildlife. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The Step I 201 Facility Planning effort will be conducted in order to determine the most environmentally acceptable , cost effective and technically implementable solution to the wastewater problems of the study area. The study will present a statement of water quality objec- tives for ground and surface waters, and of other water manage- ment goals including preservation of existing groundwater levels. An inventory of existing pollution sources will be performed. Existing wastewater treatment facilities will be studied to determine their adequacy of performance. An environmental assessment of the study area will be prepared including histor- ical and archaeological considerations. A modelling program will be conducted(by the Cornell University/Cooperative Extension Association)of Shelter Island in order to determine the effects of agricultural and wastewater management policies applied to sources of nitrogen, such as human wastewater on the ground and HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. surface water quality. Various alternatives for scavenger waste treatment facilities will be evaluated, and the need for sewering of certain areas and upgrading of existing facilities will be investigated. Structural and non-structural alternatives such as, no action, alternatives of areawide and basin collection and treatment with alternative and innovative technology and land use controls to preserve the low density open space recreational character of the area will be evaluated. A final plan will be selected including views of public and concerned citizens and an environemntal impact of the selected plan. Subsequent to the completion and approval of this study, the communities may obtain grants to design and construct the recommended facilities. ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED The following issues will be addressed during the "201" planning process: - The need for sewering additional portions of the study area. - The use of land use controls to protect groundwater quality. - The establishment of a Septage Management District (SMD) to provide for protection of the environment by proper installation, management and maintenance of on-site sub- surface septic systems. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. - Protection of envi.ronmeatally sensitive areas within the study area. - Alternative solutions for treatment of scavenger waste. HOW CAN THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATE? It is important that the public be involved in the 201 facility planning effort. Public involvement early in the planning will ensure that the communities goals are incorporated into the final plan. A Public Participation Workplan (PPWP) (See Attachment) has been developed to provide the public with ample opportunity to become involved in the '1201" planning process. The PPWP out- lines the public participation activities which will be conducted and the mechanisms which will be used to provide information to and consult with the public. All pertinent references and documents will be: placed on deposit at the Town Halls, Village Halls and public libraries - within the study area for public inspection. - Notices of public meetings and hearings as well as news- letters concerning the project will also be available at the above mentioned locations. WHO CAN THE PUBLIC CONTACT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION? For further information concerning the project, please contrat Mr. Louis Errichiello, Public Participation Coordinator, at (516) 752-9060. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. HOW MUCH WILL THE PROJECT COST? The "201" facility plan is being conducted in compliance with Federal and State Laws. Federal funding is available through USEPA, which will provide 75% of the planning, design and construction costs for eligible projects. Additionally, the State of New York through NYSDEC will provide 12-1/2% of the total funding. Therefore, total funding available for planning, design and construction of the facilities amounts to a minimum of 87-1/2i of the cost. Dependent upon whether innovative/alternative technologies are implemented, additional funding up to 92-1/2o may be available. Therefore, the local costs will range from a minimum of 7-1/2i to a maximum of 12-1/2i depending on the plan that is implemented. The recommendations of the Selected Plan as part of the 201 Wastewater Facility Plan may include one of the following wastewater management strategies within certain areas in the study area. a. Expansion or establishment of a sewer district. b. Establishment of a septage management district. The costs per dwelling unit for these services will be dependent upon -the wastewater management strategy that is recommended. Since we are required to estimate costs at this time (as per the regulations), we have calculated preliminary cost estimate ranges for the different stratqies. Naturally, the size of the districts will have a major impact on these costs. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. In any event, we have estimated cost ranges and will revise them as necessary as the facility plan progresses. The costs shown below are in 1980 dollars: - For a. $175 to $225/dwelling unit/year. For b.-1 $25 initial Application Fee (paid only once) For b.-2 $10- $15 annual charge. =- In addition to b.-1 and b.-2, costs for cleaning and pumping of the septic system and disposal of the scavenger waste at the = facility would be incurred. HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM GREENPORT-SOUTHOLD/SHELTER ISLAND 201 STUDY MAILING LIST Southold Town Board Shelter Island Town Board Inc. Village of Greenport -Board of Trustees Inc. Village of Greenport -Supt. of Utilities Suffolk County Department of Health Services Nassau -Suffolk Regional Planning Board - (208 Wastewater Management Study) Suffolk County Department of Planning League of Women Voters Environmental Defense Fund North Fork Audobon Society New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - Region I New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - Albany United States Environmental Protection Agency - Region II North Fork Environmental Council COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FOR SUBACREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA GRANTS Form Approved (See accompanying instructions before completing this form) OUR No. 158-RO144 PART I -GENERAL 1.'RANTE[ T. ORADIT NUMBER INC. VILLAGE OF GRFF.NPORT C -3b-1120 7. NAME OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR •. DATE OF PROPOSAL HOLZMACHER, McLFNDON 0 MURRELL, P.C. MAY 30, 1980 5. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR (Inotude ZIP code) 6. TYPE OF SERVICE TO BE FURNISHED 201 Wastewater Facility 575 Broad Hollow Road Study (PLiblic Participation - Melville, New York 11747 Program) CPFF PART it -COST SUMMARY 7. DIRECT LABOR (Spoclty labor categories) ESTI- MATED HOURLY ESTIMATED TOTALS HOURS RATE COST ee x 1 . i. s for a .orrea own t $ may y+ yL* A¢�'a Al ill �•''� �+�'�;� �; .��'�. __ Salar Fscalatl on Purl n eri-od of performance = 18 months atY/+y�l, 7o Vear = 5.25% ''68 .— ... ... ���.... q� ' ,;{. •�: IY . '�I SIA . Y •'C: _ DIRECT LABOR TOTALI 6. INDIRECT COSTS (Speclty Indirect cost pool&) RATE x BASE _ ESTIMATED COST l4!k�i;�Rrlll'Nt _ Tndirect Cost; 1.85 5,378. _ s _ INDIRECT COSTS TOTALI I , 0 . 9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS rXT?RIX 7'T> ESTIMATED Y. TRAVEL COST 7M (2,600 Miles Tolls TRANf PORTATION 200 mile 9 555. ` S`Ii�S��I�a i I f4 +'+`».t'7 (2) PeR DIk:M f TRAVELSUBTOTAL, f 555. b, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (Speclte categories) QTY COST COST W lir .4 Yi> Printing f f 500. Postage 150. Misc. Fc llt ment ental. 200. (Audio -Visual) EQUIPMENT SUBTOTALI "LI �r l;..`: `f,_"r. + ;`' °; • 850. C. SUBCONTRACTS ESTIMATED COST �, �. + ? ( . r i. r, yllt�+l ddNy. bw iiLi r l Y t! )n SUBCONTRACTSSUBTOTAL. d. OTHER (Speelty categories) ESCOSTTEO +� y s '� FIs; OTHER SUBTOTAL: IIma— e.1 OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL, ' Iv4iwlw:1«. 91d{E. �;; ^ , ! . j.TOTAL ESTIMATED COST . PROFIT I t3 % J - TOTAL PRICE , k Fors 57UU•41 (2-16) NAGE 1 OF 6 PART 111 -PRICE SUMMARY 1ST COMPETITOR'S CATALOG LISTINGS. IN-HOUSE ESTIMATES. PRIOR QUOTES (Indfeam boodo for price cuwiparloon) .y PART IV -CERTIFICATIONS MARKET PROPOS[O PRICK(S) I PRICE S 14. CONTRACTOR 14a. HAS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDERALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVIEW OP YOUR ACCOUNT$ OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT OR CONTRACT WITHIN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS1 6 YES C3 NO (If "Yes" gfte nano address and fofophono nwnbor of reviewing off/co) DCAA Carden City, New York (516) 741-8000 14►.THIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLES 40 CFR 30-700 14e. This proposal Inaubmitted for use in connpetion with and in response to (1) Publ is Part i Ci pati on Requirements of Facility Plan . This is to certify to the best of my knowledge and be ie that the cost and pricing data summarized herein are complete, current, and accurate as of (2) June 20, 1980 and that a financial management capability exists to fully and accu- rately account for the financials transactions under this project. 1 further certify that I undelr;tand that the subagreement price may be subject to downward renegotiation and/or recoupment where the above cost and pricing data have been determined, as a result of audit, not to have been complete, current and accurate as of the date above. (3) Rube 20, 1980 DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF PROPOSER Vice President TITLC OF PROPOSER 14. GRANTEE REVIEWER I certify that I have reviewed the cost/price summary set forth herein and the proposed costs/price appear acceptable for subogreement award. DATE OF USUCUTION 16. EPA Nt.VIEWER (If UFpflceble) DATE OF EXECUTION EPA F...o. 5100-41 (246) SIGNATURE OM REVIS:WQR TITLL OF N1[V14WER 216NATUN( OF NS:VIEWER TITLE OF REVIEWER PAGE 2 OF b HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM GREENPORT-SOUTHOLD/SHELTER ISLAND 201 FACILITY PLAN ACTIVITIES 1. Meetings and Hearings - (2 public Meetings, 1 public Hearing) 2. Newsletters - (approximately 3 issues of Newsletter) 3. Citizen Survey 4. Agency Responsiveness Summary - (3 Summaries) 5. Fact Sheets Development 6. Work Plan Development 7. CAC - Initial Training 8. Day to Day Coordination and Attendance at CAC Meetings ri PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM GREENPORT-SOUTHOLD/SHELTER ISLAND 201 FACILITY PLAN LABOR REOUIREMENTS BY ACTIVITY Activity DIRECT Labor TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 HOURS SALARY DOLLARS Project Manager 24 - 8 12 - 4 2 8 58 $ 19.50 $ 1,131. Engineer 24 18 24 48 16 16. 16 117 279 10.00 2,790. Tech. Editor/Aide - 36 24 12 8 8 - - 88 6.75 594. Typist 4 18 4 24 4 4 - 8 66 4.50 297. Jr. Draftsman - 9 2 12 4 4 - - 31 4.25 132. Reproduction 2 15 2 12 4 4 - - 39 4.25 166. TOTALS 54 96 64 120 36 40 18 133 561 $ 5,110. K 0 r m z 0 0 z a 9 0 0 0 m T ADVISORY GROUPS Required in full scale programs, can be used if desired in basic programs • Role assist officials in making decisions • Responsibilities - represent community views - advocate public involvement - react to project proposals - monitor progress • Membership: substantially equivalent proportions of the following four groups: - private citizens - representatives of public interest groups - public officials - citizens or organizations with economic interests 0 Training to be provided by RPA and grantee • Grantee support an operating budget day-to-day staff contact eligibility of out-of-pocket expenses professional and clerical staff time available for assistance I extent not duplicative, the agency aolding the hearing shall also provide informal notice to all Interested per- sons or organizations that request it. The notice shall identify the matters to be discussed at the hearing and shall include or be accompanied by a discussion of the agency's tentative de- termination on major issues (if any). Information on the availability of a bibliography of relevant materials (if deemed appropriate), and procedures for obtaining further information. Re- ports, documents and data relevant to the discussion at the public hearing shall be available to the public at least 30 days before the hearing. Earlier availability of materials relevant to the hearing will further assist public participation and is encouraged where possible. (c) locations and time. Hearings must be held at tines and places which, to the maximum extent feasi- ble, facilitate attendance by the public. Accessibility of public transpor- tation, and use of evening and week- end hearings, should be considered. In the case of actions with Statewide in- terest, holding more than one hearing should be considered. (d) Scheduling presentations. The agency holding the hearing shall schedule witnesses in advance, when necessary, to ensure maximum partici- pation and allotment of adequate tittle for all speakers. however, the agency shall reserve some time for unsched- uled testimony and may consider re- serving blocks of time for major cate- gories of witnesses. (e) Conduct of hearing. The agency holding the hearing shall Inform the audience of the Issues Involved in the decision to be made, the consider- ations the agency will take Into ac. count, the agency's tentative detern)i- nations (if any), and the information which is particularly solicited from the public. The agency should consid- er allowing a question and answer period. Procedures shall not unduly in- hibit free expression of views (for ex- ample, by onerous written statement requirements or qualification of wit- nesses beyond minimum identifica- tion). (f) Record. The agency holding the hearing shall prepare a transcript, re- cording or other complete record of public hearing proceedings and make it available at no more than cost to anyone who requests it. A copy of the record shall be available for public review. § 25.6 Public meetings. Public meetings are any assemblies or gathering, (such as conferences, in- formational sessions, serninars, work- shops, or other activities) which the responsible agency intends to be open to anyone wishing to attend. Public RUM AND REGULATIONS meetings are less formal than public hearings. They do not require formal presentations, scheduling of presenta- tions and a record of proceedings. Tile requirements of § 25.5 (b) and (c) are applicable to public meetings, except that the agency holding the meeting may reduce the notice to not less than 30 days if there is good reason that longer notice cannot be provided. § 25.7 Advisory groups. (a) Applicability. The requirements of this section on advisory groups shall be met whenever provisions of this chapter require use of an advisory group by State, interstate, or substate agencies involved in activities support- ed by EPA financial assistance under any of the three Acts. (b) Role. Primary responsibility for decision-making in environmental pro- grams Is vested by taw in the elected and appointed officials who serve on publie bodies and agencies at various levels of government. However, all seg- ments of the public must have the op- porttutity to participate in environ. mental quality planning. Accordingly, where EPA Identifies a peed for con- tinued attention of an Informed core group of citizens in relation to activi- ties conducted with EPA financial as- sistance, program regulations else- where In this chapter will require an advisory group to be appointed by the financially assisted agency. Such advi- sory groups will not be the sole mecha- nism for public participation, but will complement other mechanisms. They are intended to assist elected or ap- pointed officials with final decision- making responsibility by making rec. ommendations to such officials on Im. portant Issues. In addition, advisory grouts should fost:er a constructive in- terchange among the various interests present on the group and enhance the Prospect of community acceptance of agency action. (e) Membership. (1) The agency re- ceiving financial assistance shall assure that the advisory group reflects a balance of interests in the affected area. In order to .meet this require- ment, the assisted agency shall take positive action, in accordance with paragraph (c)(3), to establish an advi- sory group which consists of substan- tially equivalent proportions of the following four groups: (i) Private citizens. No person may be htcluded in this portion of the advi- sory group who is likely to incur a fi. nancial gain or loss greater than that of an average homeowner, taxpayer or consumer as a result of any action likely to be taken by the assisted agency. (IU Representatives of public interest groups. A "public interest group" is an organization which reflects a general civic, social, recreational, environ)nen- 10295 tal or public health perspective in the area and which does not directly re- flect the economic interests of its membership. (Iii) Public officials. Ov) Citizens or representatives of or- ganizations with substantial economic interests in the plan or project, (2) Generally, where the activity has a particular geographic focus, the ad- visory group shall be made up of per- sons who are residents of that geo- graphic area. (3) In order to meet the advisory group membership requirements of paragraph (c)(1), the assisted agency shall: (1) Identify public interest groups, economic interests, and public officials who are interested in or affected by the assisted activity. (1I) Make active efforts to Inform citizens In the affected area, and the persons or groups identified under paragraph (c)(3)(i), of this opportuni- ty for participation on the advisory group. This may include such actions as placing notices or announcements in the newspapers or other media, mailing written notices to Interested parties, contacting organizations or in- dividuals directly, requesting organiza- tions to notify their members through meetings, newsletters, or other means. (iii) Where the membership compo- sition set forth in paragraph (c)(1) is not, met after the above actions, the assisted agency shall Identify the cau- sative problems and make additional efforts to overcome such problems. For example, the agency should make personal contact with prospective par- ticipants to invite their participation. (lv) Where problems In meeting the membership composition arise, the agency should request advice and as- sistance from EPA. (d) The assisted agency shall record the names and mailing addresses of each member of the advisory group, with the attributes of each in relation to the membership requirements set forth in paragraph (c)(1), provide a copy to EPA, and make the list availa- ble to the public. In the event that the membership requirements set forth in paragraph (c)(1) are not met, the as- sisted agency shall append to the list a description of Its efforts to comply with those requirements and an expla- nation of the problems which prevent- ed compliance. EPA shall review the agency's efforts to comply and ap- prove the advisory group composition or, if the agency's efforts were inad- equate, require additional actions to achieve the required membership com- position. (e) Responsibilities of the assisted agency. (1) The assisted agency shall designate a staff contact who will be responsible for day-to-day coordina- tion among the advisory group, the FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 34—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1979 10296 agenry, and any agency contrartors or rnnsultants. The financial assistance agreement shall Include a budget item for this staff cont.art. Where substan- tial port ions of the assisted agency's tesponsibilitles will be met under con- tract, the agency shall require a sintl- lar desirnatlon, and budget specifira- tion, of Its contractor. In the latter event, the assisted agenry do, -s not have to designate a separate staff ron- tact on its own staff, if the I;,egloeral Adniinist rator determines that the contrnrtor's designation will result, in adequate rnorditint ion. The staff con- tact shall be located In the project arca. (2) The, assisted ag,•ncy has such re- sponsibilities as providing the advisory group with Information, Identifying Issues for the advisory group's consid- eratlon, consulting with the advisory group throughout the project, request- ing Lhe advisory group's recommenda- tions prior to major decisions. Irans- mitling advisory group recommenda- tions to declslon-making officials, and making written responses to any forntal recommendation by the adviso- ry group. The agency shall make any such written responses available to the public. To the maximum extentfew;l- ble, the assisted agency shall involve the advisory group In the development of the public participation program. (3) The assisted agency shall identi- fy profes,%kmal and clerical staff (.line which tile advisory group may depend upon for as%Islance, and provide the advisory group wlLh an operating budget which may be used for t.ectuti- cal assfstrunce and other purposes agreed upon between Lite advisory group and the agency, (4) The assisted agency shall es(ab- lish a system to make costs of reason- able out -of pocket expenses of adviso- ry group partirlpation available to group member.%. 'I'1)ne away from work need not be reimbursed; however, as- sisted agencies are encouraged to schedule meetings at times and places which will not require members to leave, their jobs to attend, (f) Adeisory group responsibilities and dulirs. The advisory group may select 1l~s own chairperson, adopt its own rules of order, and schedule and conduct its own meetings. Advisory group meetings shall be announced well in advance and shall be open to Lite public. At all meetings, the adviso- ry group shall provide opportunity for public comment. Any minutes of advi- sory group meetings and recommenda- tions to the assisted agency shall be available to the public. The advisory group should monitor the proeress of the project and become famillar with Is9ues relevant to project development. in the event Lite assisted agency ail(] the advisory group arcree that the ad- vL;ory group will assume public par - RULES AND REGULATIONS ticipation responsibilities. the group should undertake those responsibil- ities promptly. The advisory vioup should make written reconunendatt-nfs directly to the assisted agency and to responsible decision-making officials on major decisions (including approval of the public participation program) and respond to any re flue9Gs from the agenry or decision-making officials for recornmendat.ions. The advisory group should reniain aware of commrmil Y at- titudes and responses to issues as ihey arlse. As part of this effort., the adviso- ry group may, within the limllat Ions of available resources, conduct public participation activities In conjunction with the arsisted agcney: solicit out- side advice; and establish, in conjunc- tion with the assisted agency, subcom- mittees, ad hoc groups, or task forces to investigate and develop recommen- elf Ions on particular issues an they arise. The advisory grnup should un- dertake its responsibilities fully and promptly in accordance with the poll - cies and requirements of. this part. Nothing shall preclude the riQhl of the advisory group from requesting EPA to perform an evaluation of the assisted agency's compliance with Lhe regtilrement^s of this part. (g) Training and assislanre. EPA will promptly provide appropriate written guidance and project Informa- tion to the newly formed advisory group and may provide advice rind as- sistance to the r.rwip throughout the life of the project. EPA will develop and, in conjunction with the .State or assisted agency, carry out a program to provide It trrtining session for the advisory group, and appropriate Assist- ed agency representatives, promptly after Lite advisory group Is formed, The assisted agency shall provide addi- tlonal needed information or assist- ance to the advisory group. § 25.8 Reyponglvenemr mummariet. Each agency which conducts any nc- tivitles requied under this part shall prepare a Responsiveness Summary at specific decision point.% as specified in program regulations or In the ap- proved public participation work plan. Responsiveness Summaries are also re- quired for rulemaking activities under §25.10. Each Responsiveness Sum- mary shall identify the public partici- pation nct.1vity conducted; describe the matters on which the public was con- sulted: summarize the public's views, sigrilficant, comments. criticisms and suggestions: and set forth the agency's specific responses in terns of ntodif I - cations of the proposed action or an explanation for rejection of proposals made by the public. Responsiveness Summaries prepared by agencies re- ceiving EPA financial assistance ::hall also include evaluations by the agoncy of Lite effecLiveness of the public par- ticipation program. Assisted agencies shall request sueh evaluations from any advisory group and provide an op- portunity for other participaling mem- bers of the public to contribute to the evaluation. (In the case of programs with multiple responsiveness summary requirement -s, these ana-ly,;es need only be prepared and submitted wlt.li the final stnntnary required.) Respon- siveness sununaries shall be forwarded to the appropriate decision-utakin.p, of- ficial and shall be made available to the public. Responsiveness Summaries shall be used as part of evaluations re- quired under this part or eiscwhete in this chapter. 25.9 Permit enforcement. Each nFency administering, a permit program shall develop Internal proce- dures for receiving evidence submitted by citizens about permit violations and ensuring thnt It Is properly considered. Public effort in reporting violations shall be encouraged, and the agency shall make available information on reporting procedures. The agency shrill investigate alleged violations promptly. §25.10 Ithdemaking. (a)• P'PA shall invite and consider written comments on proposed and in- terim regulations from any Interested or affected persons and organizations. All such comments ,hall be part, of the public record, and a. copy of each cont- ment shall be available for public in- spection, EPA will maintain a docket of comments received and any Agency responses. Notices of proposed and in- terim ruirmaking, as well as final rules and regulations, shall be distributed In arcordance with § 25.4(c) to interested or affected persons promptly after publiention. Each notice shall Include Information its to ttte availability of the full texts of rules and rcrulat.lons (where these are not set forth In the itol lee itself) and places where copying fnellitles are available at rertsonable cost to the public. Under Executive Order 12044 (March 23, 1978). further T:PA guidance will be issnrd concern- ing public partlett?ation in, EPA rule- making. A Responsiveness Summary shall be published as part of the pre- amble to Interim and final reculatiorts. In addition to providing opportunity for written comments on proposed and interim regulations, EPA may choose to hold a publlr hearing. (b) State rulemaking specified in 25.2(a)(1) shall be in accord with the requirements of subparagraph (a) of this paragraph or with the State's ad- ministrative procedures act, it one exists. Howrver, in the event of con - flirt between a provision of paragrRph (a) and a provision of a SlnLe's Admin- istrative procedures act, the State's law shall apply. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 49, NO. 36—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1979 H2M Corp. HOLZMACHER,McLENDON and MURRELL,P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS i to v i r. a 11 ',it 11 �_.,1 July 3, 1980 Mr. George Wallace Acting Director Bureau of Construction Grants Administration New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233 Dear Mr. Wallace: HOW HI G HOLIMALHEI, P E E V L S 5AMULI. C MLLENOON Vi NORMAN E MUHHELL P E MAR OLOA DOMBECK PL HUGO 0 FREUDLNTHAL Ph D CARL E DECKER PE JOHN J MOLLOY PE DONALD A SIOSS P E GARY ELOESCH P E BRIJ M SHRIVASIAVA P E CHARLESE HANKS. PE ANTHONY SIMONL L S ROBERT J McGINNIS P E JEFFREY A HAH[MAN. PE 0r*t1,1.___40_ Co;'eS x/Atty. Aub. Cite File Re: Greenport-Southold/Shelter Island 201 Facility Study We enclose herewith one (1) copy of the grant amendment for the above referenced project. Since the grant amendment had to be executed by the Village of Greenport and both the Towns of Southold and Shelter Island, some delays were en- countered in executing and submitting this document. We trust that the delay has not caused any inconvenience to your office. Should any questions arise with regard to the enclosed, please contact our office. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. Gare. Loesch, P.E. GEL/pak Enc. cc: Mayor George Hubbard Supervisor William R. Pell, III Supervisor Barbara Keyser � x ° JUL -7 19 3 L �>> '>Y;',S` 'fit" H 2M Corp. HOLZMACHER,McLENDONandMURRELL,P.C.` CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS July 3, 1980 Ms. Helen S. Beggun, Chief Grants Administration Branch United States Environmental Protection Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 ROBFI? f f, ••!'I ,+Ai HI SAMUEL ;l Mri EN00N NORMAN F RAI PFF: L P t : HAROLD A OOh+fu_F'k P ( HUGO D FRHIMi.NTHAI. I" .. CARL E RECKF.F? sF JOHN .1 M01 F DONALD ASi05S P E GARY F LOF F�CH 1' F BR'JM SHR IVAS TAVA PF CHARLES E RAN'6 P F ANIHONY SIMONE t S ROBERT J! Me6iNN16 PF JEFFREY A HARTMAN PF Re: Greenport-Southold/Shelter Island 201 Facility Study Dear Ms. Beggun: We enclose herewith two (2) copies of the grant amendment for the above referenced project. Since the grant amendment required execution by the Village of Greenport and both the Towns of Southold and Shelter Island, some delays were en- countered in executing and submitting this document. We trust that the delay has not caused any inconvenience to your office. Should any questions arise with regard to the enclosed, please contact our office. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. Gary E. Loesch, P.E. GEL/pak Enc. cc: Mayor George Hubbard Supervisor William R. Pell, III Supervisor Barbara Keyser �.^.a 1 E � '� � u .....E � ......�',._-:.� ..,!, U 5. , 719W TOWN CIF SOU ilc U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT' .)N AGENCY GRANT IDENTIFICATION NO. GRANT AGP.EEMENT/AMENDMENT C 3 6 1 1 2 0 1 1 CHECK APPLICABLE ITEMIS) IX DATE OF AWARD (Obligation da(e) 6 1 ) GRANT AGREEMENT GRANT AMENDMENT TYPE OF ACTIONsUSSEOUENT Revision RELATED PROJECT (14VT) PART 1 -GENERAL INFORMATION 1. GRANT PROGRAM Construction Of 2• STATUTE REFERENCE 3. REGULATION REFERENCE 40 CFR Wastewater Treatment Worksl 33 USC 1281(g)(11 Part 30 6 Pa 4. GRANTEE ORGANIZATION i. NAME C. ADDRESS Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, New York 11944 b. EMPLOYER I.D. NO. (EIN) 5, PROJECT MANAGER (Grantee Contact) Al. NAME d. ADDRESS George Hubbard Village of Greenport 236 Third Street TITLE Mayor Greenport, New York 11944 C. TELEPHONE NO. (Include Area Code) 516-477-0248 6. PROJECT OFFICER (EPA Contact) ' a. NAME *Helen S. Beggun, Grants Officer d ADDRESS **George G. McCann, P.E., Project Officer Environmental Protection Agency, Region II 26 Federal Plaza b. TITLE *Chief, Grants Administration Branch **Chief, Eastern New York Section New York, New York 10007 *Grants Administration Branch, Room 937A C. TELEPHONE NO. (Itlt:lude Area Code) *212-264-9860 **212-264-0919 ** NY Water Progrrarm Branch, Room 837 7. PROJECT TITLE AND DESCRIPTION VILLAGE OF GREENPORT, TOWNS OF SOUTHHOLD AND SHELTER ISLAND, SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y. Preparation of a facility plan for the Village of Greenport and the Towns of Southhold and Shelter Island including Scavenger Waste Studies and an Infiltration/Inflow Analysis of the existing Shelter Island Heights sewers. PROJECT STEP (WNT) 1 s. DURATION PROJECT PERIOD (Dates) BUDGET PERIOD (Dates) September 1977 - December 1981 N/A 9. DOLLAR AMOUNTS TOTAL PROJECT COSTS O $203,687 EPA GRANT AMOUNT (In-KlndAmt. ) $152,765 UNEXPENDED PRIOR YR. DAL. (EPA Funds) TOTAL ELIGIBLE COSTS (W)47-) !, $203,687 `r N/A TOTAL BUDGET PERIOD COSTS N/A THIS ACTION (This obligaion amount) $ 79,265 10. ACCOUNTING DATA APPROPRIATION DOC CONTROL NO. ACCOUNT NO. OBJ CLASS AMOUNT CHARGED 68X0103.9 K36015 BG7EO22002 At. 11 $ 79,265 (FY -77) 11. PAYMENT METHOD 12. PAYEE (Name and mailing address. Include ZIP Code) �/ J ADVANCES I_% at award) LX REIMBURSEMENT Village of Greenport 236 Third Street DDTHER Greenport, New -York -_.1.1944 SEND PAYMENT REQUEST TO Ms Been S. Beggun. ` Chief, Grants Administration Branch R 4 EPA Farm 5700_20A (Rev. 8-76) REPLACES EPA FORM 5700.20(RE V. 4-75) WHICH 1S SPADE 1 OF 7 OBSOLETE AND EPA FORM $700-21. it ` JUL- 7 1080 i s FF .... a .. GRANT IDENTIFICATION NO. C.i61120-0111 PART 11—APPROVED BUDGET TABLE A - OBJECT CLASS CATEGORY (Non-constructlon) TOTAL APPROVEO ALLOWABLE BUDGET PERIOD COST 1. PERSONNEL 2 FRINGE BENEFITS 3 TRAVEL 4. EOUI P M E N T 5 SUPPLIES 6 CONTRACTUAL 7 CONSTRUCTION 6 OTHER 9 TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 10, INDIRECT COSTS: RATE % BASE - ,I. TOTAL (Share: Grantee 'h Federal y) 12. TOTAL APPROVED GRANT AMOUNT TABLE B - PROGRAM ELEMENT CLASSIFICATION (Non -construction) 1. 2. 3. 4 S. 6. 7. e. 9. lo. TOTAL (Sherr: Grantee % Fedend 11 TOTAL APPROVED GRANT AMOUNT $ I. 2. TABLE C - PROGRAM ELEMENT CLASSIFICATION (Constnlction) ADMINISTRATION EXPENSE _ PRELIMINARY EXPENSE _•- 2,500 0 3. LAND STRUCTURES. RIGHT-OF-WAY 4. ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING BASIC FEES Z01 .187 S. OTHER ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING FEES 6. PROJECT INSPECTION FEES 7. LAND DEVELOPMENT r 6 RELOCATION EXPENSES 9. RELOCATION PAYMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES 10. OEMOLI TION AND REMOVAL 11. CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT IMPROVEMENT 12. EOL'PMENT _ 13. MISCELLANEOUS 14 TOTAL (Linea 1 thru 13) 203,687 15 ESTIMATED INCOME (It applicable) 16. NE T PROJECT AMOUNT (Line J4 minus 15) $ 203.687 17. LESS: INELIGIBLE EXCLUSIONS la. ADD: CONTINGENCIES 19. TOTAL (Share: Grantee 25 % Federal 75 7) $ 203,687 2o, TOTAL APPROVED GRANT AMOUNT 152,765 EPA Form 5700_20A (Re.. 9_76) PAGE 2 OF 7 ` PART 111 • GRANT CONDITIONS a. General Conditions: The grantee covenants and agrees that it will expeditiously initiate and timely complete the project work for which assistance has been awarded under this grant, in accordance with all applicable provisions of 40 CFR Chapter I, Subpart B. The grantee warrants, represents, and agrees that it, and its contractors, subcontractors, employees and representatives, will comply with: (1) all applicable provisions of 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter B, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO the provisions of Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 30, and (2) any special conditions set forth in this grant agreement or any grant amendment pursuant to 40 CFR 30.425. b. Special Conditions: See Attachment EPA Form 5700-20A (R&v. 8-76) 4 PAGE 3 OF % GRANT IDENTIFICATION NO— b. SPECIAL CONDITIONS (Continued) See Attachment PART IV NOTE: The Grant Agreement must be completed in duplicate and the Criginal returned to the Grants Administration Division for Ileadqu;Irters grant awards and to the appropriate Grants Administrdtion Office for state and local awards within 3 calendar weeks after receipt or within any extension of time as may be granted by FPA Receipt of a written refusal or failure to return the properly executed document within the prescribed time, may result in the aulomalic withdrawal of the grant offer by the Agency. Any change to the Grant Agreement by the grantee sub - Sequent II) the t1twumeni being signed by the EPA Grant Award Official which the Grant Award Official determines to materially alter the Grant Agreement shall void the Grant Agreement. OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE The United States of America, acting by and through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), hereby offers a grant/amendment to the Village of Greenport for 75 % of all approved costs incurred up to and not GRANTEE ORGANIZATION exceeding S 152,765 _ for the support of approved budget period effort described in application rl►,Ill/Il;„K Illi GRANT AMOUNT Village of Greenport Towns of Southhold & Shelter Islapd Il /p/,I /II,III, ,lmd,//��1 attwoo C361120-01-1 included herein by reference Original app l ication `dated 4-6—// TITLE AND DATF_ Revised application undated received 11-2-79 ISSUING OFFICE rGri it. A.dnini,.rrar/wI 011ii-0 AWARD APPROVAL OFFICE ORGANIZATION ADDRLSS ORGANIZATION ADDRESS Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Grants Administration Branch, Room 937A 26 Federal Plaza aeral Plaza New York, New York 10007 rk, w York 000 KAew HE ITE STA ES OF AMERICA BY THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RE OF A A OF JAL AME ANO TITLE Charles S. Warren JV/7/20W Regional Administrator, Region II Thr% Grant Agreement I% subject to applicable U.S. Environmental Protection Agency statutory provision and A3111 regula- tions. In accepting this award I)1 inie ldlneni and any payments made pursuant thereto, (I ) the undersigned represents that he is duly aulhurized is act on hchalt 1)1 the grantee otganiiation. and (2) the grantee agrees (a) that the giant is subject to the upplicahle pltivisions of •iU CFR Chapter I. Subchapter B and of the provisions of this agreement (Parts 1 thru IV). and (b) that acceptance of ally paymenis const it totes ;in agreement by the payee that the amounts. if any. found by EPA to have been overpaid will tx tefunded tit credited in full to EPA. BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE DESIGNATED GRANTEE ORGANIZATION SIGNATURF TVPEONAME ANO TITLE GATE See page 5 for signatures erA rorin �/IIu—LUA INev. 5-76) PAGE 4OF7 Signature Page 1. Village of Greenport Honorable George Hubbard, Mayor 2. .Town of Southhold Marie B. Johnson, Deputy Supervisor 3. Town of Shelter Island M, Barbara, 4eyser, Supervisor C361120-01-1 Village of Greenport -Iz� ;1 , , t , , , ,�-- Date Date Page 5 of 7 C361120-01-1 j Village of Greenport PART IIIb., SPECIAL CONDITIONS I. Under Part IIIb., Special Conditions, Paragraphs 1-3 are hereby deleted. H. The following Special Conditions apply to the entire scope of this project: 1. This Grant Amendment has been.executed by and on behalf of each of the grantee organizations identified on the signature page herein. The application referred to in the Offer and Acceptance is considered a joint -application of the grantee organizations. This grant is being awarded to each of the signatory municipalities who, by execution of this grant amendment, agree as follows: a. The application includes portions of the project within each signatory's jurisdiction. As to such portion, each signatory confirms the information and subscribes to the assurances included in the application. b. Each grantee assumes responsibility for compliance with all obligations imposed by this amendment with respect to the portion of the project within its jurisdiction and, further, agrees to be bound individually and jointly by the grant terms and conditions to each other signatory and to the Government, acting by and through EPA. c. Each signatory will be considered the "Grantee" with respect to the portion of the project within its jurisdiction and the applicability thereto of EPA regulations (to the extent applicable to a grant project of the type funded by this grant amendment) concerning the payment of non-federal construction costs; management and ownership of property: user charge and industrial cost recovery systems (with retained amounts handled accordingly); and sewer use ordinance, sewer system and rehabilitation, and operation and maintenance requirements. d. The Village of Greenport has been designated as the authorized representative and agent for anal on heralf of the grant signatories for purposes of administration, representation, submission to FPA of sub -agreements, and payments under this grant amendment and, for administrative purposes, as the named grantee organization on page 1 of the grant amendment, with whom it is intended that EPA shall communicate under this amendment and to whom EPA, in the first instance, shall look for compliance with grant requirements including those in c. above. Further, the Village of Greenport and each signatory municipality shall have the right to inspect, supervise and otherwise obtain assurance that each of the other signatories is in compliance with the grant and project requirements. e. Any further formal amendments to this grant requiring bilateral execution by EPA and the Grantee shall be executed in the same manner as this grant amendment. Page 6 of 7 C361120-01-1 Village of Greenport PART IIIb., SPECIAL CONDITIONS (cont'd) 2.� 3. -- 4. Pretreatment Within 90 days of grant award, the Grantee shall submit an application to the NYSDEC for grant assistance to develop a pretreatment program as required by 40 CFR Part 35, Section 35:907. Procurement of Services and/or Materials The Grantee's procurement of services, supplies or equipment under this grant, except for the procurement of architectural or engineering services or construction contracts, shall comply with applicable EPA regulations found at 40 CFR Part 33, as published in the Federal Register on February 8, 1977. Payment Schedule Payments for incurred costs will be made in accordance with the following schedule of payments, except as changed by notice in writing from the , Grants Officer to the Grantee, and subject to proper withholdings. It is the responsibility of the Grantee to insure that an accurate and timely payment schedule is provided to the Grants Officer whenever significant changes in project progress result in a significant change in the project payment needs. Payments may be requested more frequently than set forth in the schedule; however, the cumulative amounts paid cannot exceed the cumulative dollar value shown below through the quarter in which the payment is requested, said quarter to end on the last day of the month shown. Payment Date Amount (not to be exceeded) 1 - 4 Paid to date $ 399000 5 February 1980 42,505 68,417 6 March 1980 7 June 1980 95,290 8 September 1980 1171,750 9 December 1980 125,598 10 March 1981 132,422 11 June 1981 137,488 12 December 1981 $1529765 Page 7 of 7 i t FIOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / 112M CORP. �Y rr, CD MEMO TO: Supervisor William R. Pell, IIT and Town Board Town of Southold FROM: R. G_ Holzmacher, P.E. DATE: January 14, 1980 SUBJECT: Ongoing and future engineering services performed by HM&M with the Town of Southold Pursuant to the request of Supervisor Pell we describe herewith ongoing professional involvement of our firm with the Town of Southold. In addition, we have categorized follow-on services which may be required as a result of the initial work which has been completed or is underway. 1. asic 201 Wastewater Facilities Study in conjunction w ` he Inc. Villaae of Greenport: On June 21, 1977, the Southold Town Board agreed to participate with the Village of Greenport in the con- duct of a Wastewater Facilities Study of the mainland portion of the Town. This study, now 70% complete, will ascertain the wastewater needs of the Township which will protect the water resources of the Town.* The total cost of the study is $95,449.00. It is supported by a USEPA grant of 75% or $71,586.75. The remaining local share was agreed to be apportioned 70% by the Town of'Southold ($16,703.58) and 30% ($7,158.67) by the Village of Greenport. The Town's financial com- mittment has been met. It is anticipated that one-half_ ($8,351.79) will be refunded to the Town by the NYSDEC at the time any portion of the project reaches con- struction or completion. 2. Scavenger Waste Study: In order to meet the compliance requirements of the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit (SPDES) for continued scavenger waste disposal, the Town Board, on December 12, 1978, authorized an addi- tional study for scavenger waste treatment under the a; 201 Wastewater Facilities Study. The additional cost ►- for this study was $22,792.00 which would be borne by a 75% USEPA grant in the amount of $17,094.00. The remaining local share of $5,698.00 will be borne c5 by the Town of Southold. No portion of the local h share has been paid to date. Similar to item 1 above, 50% ($2,849.00) to be reimbursed by NYSDEC at a later CU o date. C/, U ii HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2.M CORP. -2- January 14, 1980 3. Construction of a Scavenger Waste Facility: It is anticipated that the scavenger waste study will recommend the construction of a treatment facility presently concepted at Greenport. There are numerous financial arrangements which may provide for the construction and operation of such a facility. We would be happy to discuss the implications of this construction with the Board at your convenience. 4. Part 360 Application and Report for Sanitary Landfill-, In accordance with the Town Board Resolution of June 23, 1979, we have prepared and submitted to the NYSDEC the report outlining the present operations of the sanitary landfill & the recommendations necessary for the Town to meet the 360 requirements. The cost of this study was $19,900.00 which has been paid to date. 5. Ground Water Monitoring at the Sanitary Landfill: NYSDEC has reviewed the 360 Report and is in the pro- cess of recommending the acquisition of additional data on current water quality in the vicinity of the landfill. NYSDEC's requirement together with a plan of action and recommendations will be submitted in the near future to t1le Board for approval and authorization. It is estimated that the cost of this work will approximate $30,000.00. 6. Leachate Liner Policy: Subject to the information developed in item 5 above, recommendation may be made by NYSDEC regarding the installation of a liner. As these requirements develop, we will assist the Town in evaluating NYSDEC's require- ments. 7. Landfill Equipment Procurement: Our firm is providing engineering services assisting the Town in application for grant assistance (25%) under the Environmental Quality Bond Act for landfill equip- ment. In addition, we have prepared specifications for such equipment, received bids and recoiiunended award for equipment purchase. This work is nearly completed. Cost of services will approximate $6,000.00. Partial payments have been made to date. HAD/pak tOLZMACHER, MCL.ENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / V12M CORP. -3- January 1-4, 1.080 8, Puj2 ,i c Water Sunoy: Since much of the Town has a wager quality problem, efforts should be made to extend the public water supply to additional areas of the Town. The prior Cutchogue-Mattituck Plater District, the Captain Kidd Water Company and the V it l_age of Green- port should all be involved to achieve a feasible, cost-effective solution. If construction aid for potable water quality becomes viable, the Town should be prepared with a plan of action to utilize these funds. ROBERT G. HOLZMACHER, P.E., P.P., L,S, SAMUEL C. McLENDON, P.E. NORMAN E MURRELL, P.E. H 2 Corp.5HAROLD A. DOMBECK. P.E. HUGO D. FREUDENTHAL, Ph. D. HOLZMACHER,McLENDONandMURRELL,P.C. CARL E, BECKER, P.E. A JOHN J. MOLLOY, P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS DONALD A SIOSS, P.E. GARY E. LOESCH, P.E. BRIJ M. SHRIVASTAVA, P.E. CHARLES E. BANKS, P.E. ANTHONY SIMONE, L.S. ROBERT J. McGINNIS, P.E. JEFFREY A. HARTMAN, P.E. May 14, 1980 Mayor George W. Hubbard Inc. Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, New York 11944 Re: Greenport -Southold/ Shelter Island 201 Study Dear Mayor Hubbard: We have been advised that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has changed its policy concerning State aid for 201 Studies. Previously, State aid was not payahle until Step 3 - Con- struction, at which time you would have been reimbursed for expenses in Step 1 - Study, and Step 2 - Design. Under the revised policy aid is now payable at Step 1. THIS WILL rmucr YOUR LOCAL SHARE FROM 25X TO 1212% OF THE ON-GOING STUDY. Shortly the NYSDEC will forward you the State contract for the aid to implement this policy. Should you have any questions, please call our office. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHE LENDON & MURRELL, P.C. H. A. Dombeck, P.E. HAD/Pak cc: Supervisor William R. Pell, III Supervisor Barbara Keyser Superintendent Jame 1. Monsell WF11 C '�_Or __ ---- ------ JUDITH T. TERRY T01W CLERK REGISTRAR Or VITAL STATISTICS. E QF 'Q� I:, RIC ., 771, �StTFFO1✓1Of 'X Southold, L. L. N. Y. 11971 February 29, 1980 TELEPHONE (516) 7654801 Mr. Carl Lingard, P.E. United States Environmental Protection Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Be: Tnc. Village of Greenport C-36-1120 Greenport/Southold Shelter Island 201 Study Dear Mr. Lingard: The Town Board -of the Town.of Southold by resolution dated February 26, 1980 approved Amendment No. 2 of the . Greenport/Southold/Shelter Island 201 Study as attached hereto, which provides for an Infiltration/Inflow Analysis of Shelter Island Heights Association at a fixed price of $5•,580.0-0, said expense to beat the sole expense of the Town of Shelter Island. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Enclosures cc: Gary E. Loesch, P.E. January 31, 1980 Supervisor William R. Pell, III Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Greenport/Southold - Shelter Island 201 Study Dear Supervisor Pell: In accordance with USEPA's letter (dated January 2, 1980) to the Inc. Village of Greenport regarding the above referenced project, we have prepared and enclosed our response. In order for our response to be part of Amendment No. 2, the Village of Greenport and the Towns of Southold and Shelter Island must indicate their approval. Would you please review the enclosed and forward same to USEPA if you are in agreement. If there are any questions, please contact our office. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. Z' Gay E. Loesch, P.E. GEL/pak Enc. ROBERT G- 1-10E.Th1ACHER. P.E., P.P., L.S. SAMUEL C. McLENDON. P.E. NORMAN E. MURRELL, P.C. H 2 M Corp. HAROLD A. DOMBECK, P E. HUGO D. FREUDENTHAL, Ph. 0, HOLZMACHER,McLENDONandMURRELL,P.C. CARL E.BECKER,P.E JOHN J. MOLLOY, P.E. i CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS DONALD A SIOSS, P.E. GARY E LOESCH. P.E. 575 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD, MELVILLE, NY 11747 (516) 694-3040 ❑ " BRIJ M. SHRfVASTAVA, P.E. 560 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD, MELVILLE, NY 11747 (51666) 752-90 CHARLES E BANKS. P.E. - 375 FULTON STREET, FARMINGDALE, NY 11735 (516) 694-3410 ❑ ANTHONY SIMONE, L.S 209 WEST MAIN STREET, RNERHEAD, NY 11901 (516' 727-3480 ❑ ROBERT J. MGGINNIS, P.E. 40 PARK PLACE NEATON, NJ 07860 (201) 383-3544 C JEFFREY A. HARTMAN, P.E. January 31, 1980 Supervisor William R. Pell, III Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Greenport/Southold - Shelter Island 201 Study Dear Supervisor Pell: In accordance with USEPA's letter (dated January 2, 1980) to the Inc. Village of Greenport regarding the above referenced project, we have prepared and enclosed our response. In order for our response to be part of Amendment No. 2, the Village of Greenport and the Towns of Southold and Shelter Island must indicate their approval. Would you please review the enclosed and forward same to USEPA if you are in agreement. If there are any questions, please contact our office. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. Z' Gay E. Loesch, P.E. GEL/pak Enc. H 2M Corp.. ,HOLZMACHER,McLENDON andMURRELL,P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS 575 BROAD HOLI OW ROAD, MELVILLE. NY 11747 15161 694-30400 560 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD. MELVILLE. NY 11747 (516) 752-9W W" 375 FuLTON STREE I. FARMINGDALE. NY 11735 (5161 694-34100 209 WES? MAIN STREET. RIVE RHEAD NY 11401 (5161 727.34800 sO PARK PLACE. NEWTON. NJ 07660 (2011 383-3544 O January 30, 1980 Mr. Carl Lingard, P.E. United States Environmental Protection Agency 26 Federal Plaza New :fork, New York 10007 ROBERT G HOLZMACHER, P E., P P., L S SAMUEL C McLENDON, P E NORMAN E. MURRELL. P E. HAROLD A DOMBECK, P E HUGO 0. FREUDENTHAL. Pn D. CARL E BECKER. P.E. JOHN J. MOLLOY, P.E DONALD A SIOSS, P.E. GARY E. LOESCH. P E. BRIJ M. SHRIVASTAVA. P.E. CHARLES E. BANKS. P E. ANTHONY SIMONE. L.S. ROBERT J MCGINNIS. P.E. JEFFREY A. HARTMAN. PE. Re: Inc. Village of Greenport C-36--1120 Greenport/Southold - Shelter Island 201 Study Dear Mr. Lingard: In accordance with your letter dated January 2, 1980, regarding the above referenced project, we have made the following modifications: a.. We have indicated on Page B-4 of Amendment No. 2 that a summary of all tasks is included in our. proposal, dated May 14, 1979. In addition, the first page of the Amendment has been revised to include the proposal as part of Amendment No. 2. b. A copy of the proposed Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. - Cornell University contract is enclosed. This contract is to be executed shortly, copy of which will be forwarded to your office. C. The payment provision on page 22 has been changed as per our telephone conversation, copy of which is enclosed. An MBE policy statement will be prepared and forwarded under separate cover. 9 HOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. Mr.Carl Lingard, P.E. -2- January 30, 1980 0 We request that the enclosed pages be part of the Amendment No. 2 and supercede those previously submitted. Copies of same will be forwarded to the Village of Greenport and Towns of Shelter Island and Southold for adoption. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. c Gary E. Loesch, P.E. GEL/pak Enc. cc: William LaRow William F. Esmond Mayor George Hubbard Supervisor William R. Pell, III Supervisor M. Barbara Keyser } _,_......�..Q. SUMMARY - +U HOLZMACHER, McLENDON L' cd c ;a +,•,�+, Q) a a) _............,.. ,...... .� i� `V > 'N'0 > w +' co 0 Pq 0:3 A co � M EXHIBIT A SHELTER ISLAND & MURRELL, P.C. w cd O+, >c +-)o zs V -H a) ai r_ +' > CO 1-1 :1 r4 < M a 201 STUDY* LABOR BY MILESTONES C 0 4-) O •° w Total Hourly a Hours Rate TOTAL Project Manager/Scientist 28 32 44 28 40 172 $18.375 $ 3,161. Project Engineer/Scientist 40 48 72 40 40 240 12.5625 3,015. a Staff A Engineer/Scientist 96 52 104 40 4 296 9.50 2,812. Assistant Engineer/Scientist 220 132 200 60 - 612 6.00 3,672. Technician 40 16 60 20 - 136 4.625 629. Design Draftsman 8 8 8 12 4 40 10.125 405. Draftsman 92 28 60 32 4 216 8.125 1,755. Jr. Draftsman 4 4 8 - - 16 3.875 62. Librarian 16 4 8 - - 28 6.00 168. Technical Typist 80 44 80 48 8 260 5.375 1,398. Typist 12 4 8 4 4 32 3.875 124 Reproduction Clerk 24 20 24 24 4 96 4.125 396. TOTALS 660 392 676 308 108 2144 $17,597. *A summary of all tasks for each report is included in our proposal date(:1:lay 14, 1.970 x N D n x Fn r M z V 0 z m a c M M M r r ro x N n 0 x ro AMENDMENT NO. 2 This AMENDMENT to the AGREEMENT made this day of 1979, by and between Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. with offices at 500 Broad Hollow Road, Melville, New York 11747, here- inafter called the "Consultant", the Town Board, Town of Southold and the Board of Trustees, Village of Greenport, a municipal corporation of the State of New York, hereinafter called the "Town/Village", and the Town Board, Town of Shelter Island, here- inafter called the "Board". W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Consultant has been engaged by the Town/Village to do a Section 201. Wastewater Facility Study under a grant of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Shelter Island has requested the Consultant to prepare a separate facility report as part of the 201 Facility Plan being developed for the Town/ Village in order to meet the requirements of its State Pollu- tion Discharge Elimination System Permit, and WHEREAS, the Consultant is desirous of assisting the Town by providing the necessary professional services in connection therewith, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed that the contract between the Town/Village and the Consultant is herewith amended as follows: i! 1. The Consultant shall perform an Infiltration/Inflow Analysis for the Shelter Island Heights Association sanitary collection system as described in Exhibit A appended herewith, in accordance with USEPA require- ments and our proposal dated May 14, 1979. 2. The Consultant shall perform the study and prepare a Section 201 Wastewater Facility Report for the Town Board, Town of Shelter Island as described in Exhibit B appended herewith, in accordance with USEPA require- ments and our proposal dated May 14, 1979. i' i I Cornell University Office of Sponsored Programs Ithaca, New York 14853 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CORNELL UNIVERSITY, hereinafter called "the University", and HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON AND MURRELL, P.C., with offices at 575 Broad Hollow Road, Melville, New York 11747, hereinafter called "the Sponsor". The University will undertake a technical assistance program for the Sponsor as follows: 1. Scope of Technical Assistance: 201 Application of Cornell/Cooperative Extension Water and Nitrogen Simulation Model - Assessment of Sources of Nitrogen in the Shelter Island 201 Planning Area as described in the attachment. 2. Sponsor's Commitments. It is understood and agreed that the Sponsor will pay the cost of the technical assistance. This payment will be made upon receipt of proper invoices and wiI1 include all costs associated with performance under this agreement. 3. University's Commitments. It is understood and agreed that the work will be under the supervision of Keith S. Porter, water Resources Program Coordinator, Center for Environmental Research, Cornell University. The cost of the technical assistance under Item 2 above will be established in a mutually agreed upon budget which the University will not exceed without specific written authprization or.modification of the budget to take into account new conditions. The total estimated cost of this program is $12,100. 4. Patents. If this agreement involves research, developmental, experimental, or demonstration work and any discovery or invention arises or is developed . in the course of or under this agreement, such invention or discovery shall be subject to the reporting and rights provisions of subpart D of 40 CFR part 30, in effect on the date of execution of this agreement, including Appendix B of part 30. In such case, the University shall report the discovery or invention to EPA directly or through the Sponsor, and shall otherwise comply with the Sponsor's responsibilities in accordance with subpart D of 40 CFR part 30. The University agrees that the disposition of rights to inventions made under this agreement shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions of appendix B. The University shall include appropriate patent provisions to achieve the purpose of this condition in all subcontracts involving research, developmental, experimental, or demonstration work. 5. Period_ It is understood and agreed that this project will continue for 5 months from 3/1/80 and will be subject to renewal only by mutual agreement. 1WM 6. Termination. It is understood and agreed that this project may be terminated by either party upon thirty days written notice. In the event of termination by the Sponsor, the University will be reimbursed for all commitments under Section 2. In the event of termination by the University, any unexpected or unobligated balance of funds advanced by the Sponsor shall be refunded to the Sponsor. 7. Use of the Name of the University. It is understood and agreed that the Sponsor shall not make use of the establishment of the Agreement, nor the results of the technical assistance conducted hereunder, nor the use of the University's name or any member of its staff for publicity or advertising purposes, except with the consent of and to the extent approved by the Office of Sponsored Programs as given by its Director. 8. Copyrights and Rights in Data. (a) The University ayrecs that any plans, drawings, designs, specifications, computer programs (which are substantially paid for with EPA grant funds), technical reports, operating manuals, and other work submitted with a step 1 facilities plan or with a step 2 or step 3 grant application or which are specified to be delivered under this agreement or which are developed or produced and paid for under this agreement (referred to in this clause as "Subject Data") are nubject to the rights in the United States, as set forth .in subpart D of 40 CFR part 30 and in appendix C to 40 CFR part 30, in effect on the date of execution of this agreement. These rights include the right to use, duplicate, and disclose such subject data, in whole or in part, in any manner for any purpose whatsoever, and to have others do so. For purposes of this clause, "grantee" as used in appendix C refers to the University. If the material is copyrightahle, the University may copyright it, as appendix C permits, subject to the rights in the Government in appendix C, but the Sponsor and the Federal Government reserve a royalty - free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, and use such materials, in whole or in part, and to authorize others to do so. The University shall include appropriate provisions to achieve the purpose of this condition in all subcontracts expected to produce copyrightable subject data. (b) All such subject data furnished by the University pursuant to this agreement are instruments of his services in respect of the project. It is understood that the University does not represent such subject data to be suitable for reuse on any other project or for any other purpose. If the Sponsor reuses the subject data without the University's specific written verification or adaptation, such reuse will be at the risk of the Sponsor, without liability to the University. Any such verification or adaptation will entitle the University to further compensation at rates agreed upon by the Sponsor and the University. 9. Reports. It is understood and agreed that an informal report of the progress of the work shall from time to time be made to the Sponsor by the Principal Investigator and a final report will be submitted on completion of the work. 10. Audit. (a) The University shall maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence directly pertinent to performance on EPA grant work under this agreement in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices consistently applied, and 40 CFR 30.605, 30.805, and . v;. 11 -3- 35.935-7 in effect on the date of execution of this agreement. The 111,iversity shall also maintain the financial information and data used bil the University in the preparation or support of the cost ,submission re_-quired under 40 CFR 35.937-6(b) in effect on the date of execution of this agreement and a copy of the cost summary submitted to the owner. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Comptroller General of the United States, the U.S. Department of Labor, Sponsor, and (the State water pol<Iution control agency) or any of their duly authorized representatives shall have access to such books, records, documents, and other evidence for inspection, audit, and copying. The University will provide proper facilities for such access and inspection. (b) The University agrees to include paragraphs (a) through (e) of this clause in all his contracts and all their subcontracts directly related to project performance that are in excess of $10,000. (c) Audits conducted under this provision shall be in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and established procedures and guidelines of the reviewing or audit agency(ies). (d) The University agrees to the disclosure of all information and reports resulting from access to records under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this clause, to any of the agencies referred to in paragraph (a), provided that the University is afforded the opportunity for an audit exit conference and an opportunity to comment and submit any supporting documentation on the pertinent portions of the draft audit report and that the final audit report will include written comments of reasonable length, if any, of the University. (e) The University shall maintain and make available records under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this clause during performance on EPA grant work under this agreement and until 3 years from the date of final. EPA grant payment for the project. In addition, those records which relate to any "Dispute" appeal under an F.PA grant agreement, to litigation, to the settlement of claims arising out of such performance, or to costs or items to which an audit exception has been taken, shall be maintained and made available until 3 years after the date of resolution of such appeal, litigation, claim, or exception. 11. Governing Law. Inasmuch as the Sponsor's professional liability insurance is inapplicable where remedies are by binding arbitration, the parties herewith agree that the provisions of USEPA Appendix C-1, Par. 6, REMEDIES shall be resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction of the State of New York. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the respective parties have executed this instrument, or caused it to be executed by their duly authorized officer, on the dates indicated below. CORNELL UNIVERSITY Thomas R. Rogers, Director Office of Sponsored Programs SPONSOR H. A. Dombe 1. E. V i ce _Pray ident ___ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 3.0 COST PROPOSAL 3.0 General The cost of the proposed services will be in accordance with the amounts as herein described and shall be a combination of fixed price fee and cost plus a fixed fee (CPFF). On those portions of the project for which renumeration is CPFF, HM&M shall endeavor to complete all work described in the proposal within the estimated and not -to -exceed costs. Where CPFF is designated, HM&M shall notify the Town when accrued costs are equal to 90 per cent of the total CPFF cost. HM&M shall proceed to proposed completion in compliance with Federal regulations after adequate additional appropriations and Federal grants have been provided, or "wrap-up" and deliver under the remaining 10 per cent only what has been previously completed, at the discretion of the Town. 3.1 Facilities Plan Services 3.1.1 Fixed Price Portions HM&M shall prepare and submit the report listed below for the fixed price fees: Infiltration/Inflow Analysis of Shelter Island Heights Assoc. $5,580.00 Total Fixed Price for I/I $5,580.00 The above fixed fee cost summary is presented on USEPA Form 5700-41 . (2/76), attached . 22. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS June 22, 1977 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233 Re: Attention: Mr. Jack McKewon Dear Mr. McKewon: TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Town of Southold/Village of Greenport - 201 Study Enclosed herewith is a Resolution authorizing the filing of an application for a federal grant with the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. This resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Board at a regular meeting held on June 21, 1977. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Town Clerk r � OFFIC RNEY TO, LD ROBERT W. TASKER '/(fes/ `�� TELEPHONE TOWN ATTORNEY 4771400 425 MAIN ST. GREENPORT, L. I., N.Y. 11944 June 16, 1977 Hon. Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Southold -Greenport 201 Study Dear Judy: Dr. Freudenthal of Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell has sent me a revised resolution and asks that it be given immediate attention. I am enclosing the original and three copies with the amendment included in the last paragraph. Also enclosed is a copy of Dr. Freudenthal's letter. This resolution should be adopted by the Town Board and three certified copies sent to the State D.E. C. at 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233, to the attention of Mr. Jack McKewon. Yours very truly, ROBRT W. TASKER RWT:NA Encs. ROBERT f1 HOLZMACHER, P E., P.P., L.S SAMUEI_ C. h11LENDON, P.E. NORMAN E. MURRELL, P.E. HUGO D. FREUDENTHAL, Ph.D. HAROLD A. DOMBECK, P.E ROBERT H.ALBANESE P.E. CARI, r_ BECKFft. P.E- CHRISTOPHEH PO'NERS, P.E. CHARLES E. RANKS, P.E. FRANK N. COPPA, P.E. Robert W. Tasker, Esq. 425 Alain Street Greenport, NY 11944 Dear Mr. Tasker: I -d2 M C0' YP71 L -d w ' t HOLZAAACHER, McLENDON and NIURRELL, P.0 Consulting Engineers, Environmental Scientists & Planner 501D L�I,04D !1OLLOVN Rt1AO, MELVitI_E, N.Y. 11745 (5161614-;:; ;0I 341 C:JfJKL1 STPEET. FARBAINCI IALE , N.Y. 11735 (516)E,'.i4-3{10f 40 PANK PLACE NFWTOP-1, N.J.07860 (201) 383-35.141 June 13, 1977 Re; Town of Southold/Village of Greenport - 201 Study Attached is a revisionto the Southold Resolution on the Southold/Greenport 201 Study. I have added a paragraph in which the Town designates the Village of Greenport as "lead agency" and authorizes Greenport to conduct the financial and business matters of the program. I was unable to confirm the wording with the Program Moni- tor in Albany, but I believe that this will fill all their re- quirements. Should there be any changes I will telephone you immediately. This Resolution, together with the Certificate of the Re- cording Officer, should be mailed directly to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12233, Attention Mr. Jack McKewon. Please send us a copy. Yours truly, HOLZMACHER, 7cLENDON& MURRELL, P.C. Hugo D. Freudenthal, Ph.D. ITDF/pak Enc. F';CLiRCES • ViATEP SMTL;, .. 1REATMrLHT , S_'',F4,ArJ & TRE7,TMEhiT S_NV.RON ,'HTAL STUDIF:; htU":ICI;AI E;JGIIJLF{1;;, 8 PLA,NfJiraG V,'AIER/WASTE WATER AND 1` IALYi1CA! `--RVICFS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR A FEDERAL GRANT WITH THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION WHEREAS, the water resources of the North Fork of Long Island are unique and fragile in quantity and its quality is becoming increasingly contaminated, and WHEREAS, the Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 provide for Federal Assistance to conduct studies of the protection of the water resources, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold is vitally concerned for the protection of the quality and quantity of the groundwater resource, and WHEREAS, The Town of Southold, after thorough consideration of the various aspects of the problem and study of available data, has hereby determined that the construction of certain works, required for the treatment of sewage, generally des- cribed as 201 Facilities Plan for Wastewater Facilities in the Town of Southold, and WHEREAS, under Public Law 92-500, the United States of America has authorized the making of grants to aid in financing the cost of construction of necessary treatment works to pre- vent; the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste into any waters and for the purpose of reports, plans, and specifications in connection therewith, and WHEREAS, the Town of Southold has examined and duly con- sidered Public Law 92-500 and the Town of Southold deems it to be in the public interest and to the public benefit to file an application under this Act and to authorize other action in connection therewith, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY The Town Board of Southold, in conjunction with the Village of Greenport,here- with authorizes the filing of an application in the form re- quired by the United States and in conformity with Public 1. -2 - Law 92-500 is hereby authorized including all understandings and assurances contained in said application, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Supervisor Albert Martocchia is directed and authorized as the official representative of the applicant to act in connection with the application and to provide such additional information as may be required, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that three (3) certified copies of this Resolution be prepared and sent to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York, together with the Federal application, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution take effect immediately, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that 30 percent of unfunded project costs will be paid by the Village of Greenport and 70 percent of the unfunded project cost will be paid by the Town of Southold, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Supervisor Albert Martocchia shall be authorized to execute such application and forms as may be necessary and also to act on behalf of the Village Board to meet Federal and State requirements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Village of Greenport is designated as the lead agency in this project and is authorized to sign all applications, submit vouchers for payment to the State and Federal Government and the Town of Southold, receive payments, make disbursements, and conduct all business as may pertain to this program. 2. CERTIFICATE OF RECORDING OFFICER The undersigned duly qualified Town Clerk of the Town of Southold does hereby certify: That the attached Resolution is a true and correct copy of the Resolution, authorizing the filing of an Application for a Federal grant under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, as regularly adopted at a legally convened meeting of the Southold Town Board, duly held on the 21st day of June, 1977; and further that such Resolution has been fully recorded in the Town Board Minute Book in my office. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 22nd day of June, 1977• (SEAL) ignature of Recording 6fficer SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK Title of Recording Officer ROBEL " L1 MACHER, P.E., P.P., L.S. SA L C. MCLENDON, P.E. NORMAN E. MURRELL, P.E. HUGO D. FREUDENTHAL, Ph.D. HAROLD A. DOMBECK, P.E ROBERT H. ALBANESE, P.E. CARL E. BECKER, P.E. CHRISTOPHER POWERS, P.E. CHARLES E. BANKS, P.E. FRANK N. COPPA, P.E. H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233 Consulting Engineers, Environmental Scientists & Planners .,uU BROAD HOLLOW fiOAD MELVILLE. NA 11146 iSto; by4 vu4G ❑ 341 GONKLIN 1,TREET, f ARMINGDALE. N.Y. 11135 i>iul 694 J41U ❑ 40 PAHK PLACE NEWTON. N.J. 07bbo 1.,011 36J-.1:,4,' ❑ February 25, 1977 Re: Town of Southold Village of Greenport 201 Wastewater Facilities Study Attention: Mr. Fred Esmond, P.E. Gentlemen: This letter responds to the telephone call of Joe Peck of your office of February 24, 1977 and the items discussed. 1. Under its present federal grant the Village of Green- port has completed an Infiltration/Inflow Study, and Sewer System Evaluation Survey. Both reports have been accepted by your Department and U.S.E.P.A. The Village is now in the pro- cess of correcting sources of Infiltration/Inflow. 2. The plan of study is a joint undertaking of the Town of Southold and Village of Greenport. However, for administra- tive purposes the Village will act as the applicant. We shall submit resolutions or letters of transmittal for the plan of study to you. 3. No other municipalities exist in the study area. The Long Island State Park Commission was contacted but has decided not to participate. (See L.I,S.P.C. letter dated January 7, 1977). 4. Attached please find the Clearinghouse approval of the Nassau -Suffolk Regional Planning Board, dated January 31, 1977. WATER RESOURCFS • WAIER 1UrFLY n TRL Tn',Lrdl • SEV:ERAGE & IkEA11AHA1 ENYIRONMtP:I:,I :;11-IC,iES MUNICIPAL LIJGRILERING & PLANNING WATER/W,-.1,1L 'AA11R tr.B6RAIORY Alai, ..NALYNCAL SEkVICES Ze CORP. ,OLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. Mr. Fred Esmond, P.E. N.Y.S.D.E.C. -2- February 25, 1977 5. The Village's NPDES permit which expires in the near future is currently being renewed by the Village. 6. Included in the concept of the plan of study but not separately identified is a task of co-ordination with the Nassau -Suffolk Regional Planning Board - 208. Continuously throughout the study, the consultant will coordinate with 208. The mathematical models developed by 208 of the Peconic Bay will be utilized by NYSDEC to establish effluent limitations if a discharge is planned for that area. Should further questions arise, please call our office. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHE , McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. H.A. Dombeck, P.E. HAD:ck Attch. cc: USEPA, Richard Caspe NYSDEC, Robert Hampston NYSDEQ Albert Machlin Supervisor Albert Martocchia James Monsell ' NassauoSuffolk Regional ]Planning Board Harold V. Gleason Chairman Seth A. Hubbard, Esq. Vice Chairman Vincent R. Balletta, Jr. Robert D. Bell H. Lee Dennison Executive Office Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge.L.l., N. Y. 11787 Area Code (516) 724-1919 Robert J. Flynn January 31, 1977 Thomas Halsey Lee F. Koppelman Executive Director Mr. H. A. Dombeek, P.E. Honorary: H2M Corp. Leonard W. Hall Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. H. Lee Dennison 500 Broad Hollow Road Melville, N. Y. 11746 RE: NY -4784 - 201 Waste Water Facility Study - Town of Southold Dear Mr. Dombeek: The Tri-State Regional Planning Commission has delegated this agency to respond to the above request. Copies of this letter and any other response must be included in your application to the Federal Covernment. The above proposal for a 201 study for the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport has been reviewed by our staff. When the proposal is filed, it should clearly indicate how it will. in- terface with the work that has been completed and will be done in the future in conjunction with the Nassau -Suffolk 208 Waste Water Management Project. Should your final application represent a major change in the project from that described in this project notification, then you must resubmit it for review. Otherwise, subject to your receiving a similar certification from the state clearinghouse, you are free to proceed with your formal application to the Federal government. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz AHK:P d Planning Coordinator cc: Gerhart A. Dunkel, Tri-State Regional Planning Commission 1"- sT�TF `4 ANN LONG ISLAND STATE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION Belmont Lake State Park, Babylon, New York 11702 516-669-1000 A. Holly Patterson (Commission Chairman John G. Sheridan, General Manager January 7, 1977 H2M Corporation Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. 500 Broad Hollow Road Melville, New York 11746 Att: Mr. H. A. Dombeck, P.E. Re: Public Law 92-500 Your letters of 12/10 & 29/76 Dear Harold: This Commission is not interested in active participation in the studies for either of the above. We would, however, like to receive any interim and final reports developed therein, especially as they might relate to our facilities at Caumsett and Orient Beach State Parks. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Francis A. Hyland, P.E. Chief Engineer FAIT: td Commission Members; Perry B. Duryea, Jr., Robert Winthrop, Ernest G.Wruck, Lynn Burke Hedermon,George J. Farrell, Robert F. Smith An Equal Opportunity Employer HOLZMACHER, P.E., P.P., L.S. SAMUEL C. M!LENOON, P.E. NORMAN E. MURRELL, P.E. HUGO D FREUDENTHAL, Ph.D. HAROLD A. DOMBECK, P.E ROBERT H. ALBANESE, P.E. CARL E. BECKER. P.E. CHRISTOPHER POWERS, P.E. CHARLES E. BANKS, P.E. FRANK N. COPPA, P.E. H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. Consulting Engineers, Environmental Scientists & Planners 500 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD, MFLVILLE, N.Y. 11746 (51616'11-31140 D 341 CONKL IN STREET, FARMINGDALE. N.Y. 11735 (516) 694 1410 O 40 PARK PLACE, NEWTON. N.J. 07806 (011 313-3544 O November 12, 1976 Supervisor Albert Martocchia and Town Board Town of Southold 11 South Street Greenport, N.Y. 11944 Mayor Joseph Townsend and Board of Trustoes Inc. Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, N.Y. 11944 Re: Wastewater Facility Plan Town of Southold Gentlemen: Pursuant to our previous conversations with the Village of Greenport, Supervisor Martocchia and Planning Board Chair- man Wickham, we wish to propose that both municipal bodies join in sponsoring an application to the United States Environmental Protection Agency and New York State Department of Environmental . Conservation to perform a Wastewater Facility Study of the Town- ship. Such a study would be performed under Section 201 of the Amendments to the Water Pollution Control Acts of 1972, which would provide for 75 per cent Federal assistance to conduct the study. In addition, the 1972 New York State Environmental Quality Bond Act will provide a potential 12,-1/2 per cent.additional as- sistance, should any recommendations of the study be implemented in the future. The purpose of the study is to: 1. Protect the fragile water resources of the North Fork. 2. Ascertain the sources of contamination of the Glacial aquifer. 3. Determine the need for and level of treatment of waste- water which shall be utilized for recharge. WATER RESOURCES - WATER SUPPLY 8 TREATMENT - ,rwFRAGF R TRFATMENT ENVIRONMFIITAL SIUDIFS - MUNICIPAI FIJGINFFRING R NANNINO, WATIR/WASTE WATER LAPORATORY AND ANALYTICAL SERVICES HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / Consulting Engineers Supervisor Albert Martocchia Town Board, Town of Southold Mayor Joseph Townsend Board of Trustees, Greenport -2- November 12, 1976 4. Determine the locations for potential recharge. S. Prepare a complete environmental inventory which will be utilized to assess the impact of potential alternatives for the North Fork. 6. Prepare alternatives to implement the goals of the study. Such alternatives will be structural and non-structural. Non-structural options will enable each municipality to rein- force its zoning and planning to prevent the degradation of ground water quality. The first step to obtain these funds is to submit a Plan of Study to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The Plan of Study cites the needs for the study and the goals and bud- gets. This study complements the present 208 Wastewater Manage- ment Study now being conducted by the Nassau -Suffolk Regional Planning Board. We would be pleased to prepare the Plan of Study for the sum of $11,400., including attending meetings in behalf of the municipalities with USEPA and NYSDEC. Inasmuch as both munici- palities are vitally concerned with the North Fork water re- sources, we would suggest that apportionment be 70 per cent by the Township and 30 per cent by the Village. Should you wish to proceed, we have enclosed a draft reso- lution authorizing the preparation of the Plan of Study. If any questions arise, please feel free to call us. HAD:vm cc: Mr. John Wickham Very truly yours, IiOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. �9cL`�d�n, P. E. R RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A PLAN OF STUDY WITH THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WHEREAS, the water resources of the North Fork of Long Is- land are unique and fragile in quantity and its quality is be- coming increasingly contaminated, and WHEREAS, the Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Con- trol Act of 1972 provide for Federal Assistance to conduct studies of the protection of the water resources, and WHEREAS, the Village Board of the Village of Greenport is vitally concerned for the protection of the quality and quantity of the ground water resource, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village Board, in conjunction with the Town of Southold herewith authorizes the submission of a Plan of Study to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. of Melville, New York, is directed to prepare the Plan of Study, and attend meetings and conferences with the United States Environmental Protection Agency and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to receive approval of the Plan of Study, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. shall be paid the sum of $1,400. by both municipalities, of 1. which the sum of $420. shall be paid by the Village of Green- port, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Mayor Joseph Townsend shall be authorized to execute such application and forms as may be necessary to submit the Plan of Study and aid application, and otherwise act in behalf of the Village Board to meet Federal and State requirements. a� wate 2. dCW, rk - -i-. ROBERT G. HOLZMACHER, P.E., P.P., LS. SAMUEL C. MCLENDON, P.E. NORMAN E. MURRELL, P.E. s HAROLD A. OOMBECK, P.E. �-"t�L M Corp. HUGO D. FREUOENTHAL, Ph. D. HOLZMACHER,McLENDONand WURRELL,P.C.CARL FRANK BECKER,P.E. FRANK N. COPPA, P.E. CONSULTING VI ENROM NENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS JOHN J. MOLLOY, P.E. � 3 DONALD A. SIOSS. P.E. r S00 BROAD HOLLO J ROAD 1'ELVi_LE. NY 11747 (576) 694-3040 ❑ CHARLES E. BANKS. P.E. ' 560 BROAD N_LLOPo ROAD ELVL.LF. NY 1174, (� 61 T2 -906C ANTHONY SIMONE. L.S. V r 375 FL)i TON ST -c'r RV i` n _F dY 11735 rSt6. 6v -3410 ❑ JAMES B. KELLEY, P.E. ._ GARY E. LOESCH, P.E. 40 W 'AI:V STR ET, R V EP Ar. NY 11907 (516, 27-3480 ❑ BRIJ M. SHRIVASTAVA, P.E. PAR C PLACE rrTGr:. NJ 07860 (201) 383-354a O Supervisor James F. Homan Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Supervisor Homan: October 12, 1979 Re: Greenport -So old 201 Study Sam McLendon requested that we determine if the payment of the local share of the Wastewater Facility Study can be made from revenue sharing funds. In this regard we have contacted Mr. Carl Lingard, P.E. of the USEPA who has advised that it is permissible to expend revenue sharing funds for the local share payment of a 201 Facilities Study. He referred to a memorandum dated April 27, 1977, from Harold Cahill of USEPA to John Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administa for of USEPA. Said memorandum stated that revenue sharing moniK can be used to pay local costs, as of January 1, 1977. This memo reverses PRN. 75=1 w ii6h*- is stated that these monies could not be-, used to pay local costs. Accordingly, use of revenue funds is proper. Should you require additional information, please contact our office. HAD/pak cc: S. C. McLendon Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, cLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. H. A. Domb k, P.E. %� �t� L �. .�?:•i�C Ctli�T ,2fd HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS 125 BAYLIS ROAD, SUITE 140, MELVILLE, N.Y. 11747 • 516-752-9060 August 26, 1983 Town Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Town of Southold Landfill Gentlemen: This is to confirm our telephone conversation of this date with Raymond C. Dean, Superintendent of Highways, regarding New York State DEC mandated groundwater sampling at the Town landfill. H2M Laboratory will collect and analyze one sample from each of four Wells for each of the following constituents: Ammonia, Arsenic, Chloride, Copper, Detergent (MBAS), Iron, Lead, Manganese, Specific Conductivity, Hardness, COD, Sulfate, TDS, Zinc, and pH. It is agreed that H2M will supply the submersible pump required to purge the Wells and extract an acceptable sample. Ray Dean has agreed to supply the services of one man to accompany the H2M Laboratory Technician at the site. The cost of this work will be $597 and will be accomplished during the week beginning August 29, 1983. If any additional information is required, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, HOLZ C E , Mc E ON & MUR.RELL, P.C. illiam Spitz WHS:des cc. Raymond C. Dean, Supt. of Highways Judith Terry, Town Clerk Melville, New York • Farmingdale, New York • Riverhead, New York CLIENT HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELLR.C. U2A CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS 575 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD, MELVILLE, N.Y. 11747.5076 (516) 694.3040. in TOWN BOARD 125 BAYLIS ROAD, SUITE 140, MELVILLE, N.Y. 11747 (516) 752.9060 9 375 FULTON STREET, FARMINGDALE. N.Y. 11735 (516) 6943410 ❑ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 209 WEST MAIN STREET, RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901 (516) 727-3480 0 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 DATE: JULY .2 6 , 1983 PROJECT NO: SOHT 82-06 For Professional Services Rendered: "PAYMENT REQUEST NO. 5** For professional services rendered in designing the propose Scavenger Waste Treatment Facility. ESTIMATED COST NOT TO EXCEED $138,000.00 Services from 5/28/83 through 7/1/83: PREVIOUS CURRENT REQUESTS REOUEST 241.0 Manhours: Technical Payroll Cost $ 49,535.68 $ 4,240.46 Overhead & Profit Allowance (1.35 x TPC) 66,873.17 5,724.62 Reimbursable Expenses (1.10 x Exp.) 11,042.37 425.30 Total Amount Claimed $127,451.22 $10,390.38 Less Previous Requests AMOUNT PAYABLE. CUMULATI TOTAL $ 53,776 14 72,597 79 11,467 67 $137,841160 127,451 22 $ 10,39013-8 FOR PROPER CREDIT AMOUNT PAYABLE 1 $ 10,3901 38 return invoice with payment or note project number on your check HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS 125 BAYLIS ROAD, MELVILLE, N.Y. 11747 • 516-752-9060 Supervisor William Pell, III Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 Dear Supervisor Pell: August 1, 1983 Recently enacted legislation will require that all landfills provide the New York State Department of Environmental Conserva- tion with pollution liability insurance or other acceptable sureties within a determined time period. We urge you to consider obtaining this new, but important, insurance for the Town at this time. This insurance could, pro- vide coverage for any claims of groundwater pollution caused by leachate. Please call me if we can provide additional information. very truly yours, HOLZMACH MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. V6/(— H.A. Domb ck, .E. HAD/kc Encl. A.6800 cc: Town Board Superintendent Ray Dean New York • Fsnooa;e New Yo -k • q.ver.K.0 New York STATE OF NEW YORK 6800--A R. R. 281 1983-1984 Regular Sessions IN ASSEMBLY March 28, 1983 Introduced by M. of A. NEWBURGER, FINK, HINCHEY, YEVOLI, HALPIN -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. BIANCHI, BRANCA, ENGEL, FELDMAN, FLANA- GAN, GRANNIS, HARENBERG, HEVESI, HOCHBRUECKNER, JACOBS, KOPPELL, MUR- TAUGH, ORAZIO, PATTON, PILLITTERE, RETTALIATA, SAWICKI,- SEMINERIO, SIEGEL -- (at request of the Governor) -- read once and referred to the Committee on Environmental Conservation -- amended on the special order of third reading, ordered reprinted as amended, retaining its place on the special order of third reading AN ACT to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to land burial and disposal of solid waste in the counties o; Nassau and Suf- folk The People of the State of New York represented -in Senate and Assem- bly, do enact as follows: 1 Section 1. Legislative findings. The legislature hereby finds that the 2 land burial and disposal of domestic, municipal and industrial solid 3 waste poses a significant threat to the quality of groundwater and. 4 therefore the quality of drinking water in the counties of Nassau and. S Suffolk. This threat is particularly dangerous since the potable water 6 supply for the counties is derived from a sole source aquifer. Scien- 7 tific evidence and analysis have identified the incapacity of land 8 burial and disposal to isolate leaching chemicals and gases from the 9 surrounding environmgnt over the long term. Resource recovery of these; 10 wastes poses minimal threats to groundwater quality. 11 § 2. The environmental conservation law is amended by adding a new 12 section 27-0704 to read as follows: 13 § 27-0704 Land burial and disposal in the counties of Nassau and Suf•: 14 folk; special provisions. is 1 Definitions As used in this section the following terms shall have 16 the following meanings: EXPLANATION --Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets I I is old law to be omitted. LBD10160-02-3 A. 6800--A 2 1 a. "Clean fill" shall mean material consisting of concrete, steel, 2 wood, sand, dirt soil, glass, or other inert material designated by the 3 commissioner. 4 b A "deep flow recharge area" shall mean a sensitive recharge area 5 within the counties of Nassau and Suffolk within the boundaries of hy- 6 drogeologic zones I. II and III as defined in the Long Island Comprehen- 7 sive Waste Treatment Management Plan of nineteen hundred seventy-eight. 8 c so Downtime waste" shall mean any treatable or burnable waste accumu- 9 lated during a scheduled or unscheduled maintenance period of a treat - 10 ment facility. 11 d I'Ilazardous waste" shall be defined as promulgated by the provisions 12 of section 27-0903 of this article. 13 a "Landfill" shall mean a disposal facility at which solid waste, or 14 its residue after treatment, is intentionally placed and at which, waste 15 shall remain after closure. 16 f "Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan of 17 nineteen hundred seventy-eight's shall mean the study prepared by the 18 Long Island Regional Planning Board pursuant -to section two hundred 19 eight of the federal water pollution control act. 20 g "Treatment facility" shall mean resource recovery, incineration, 21 composting, or other process as approved by the commissioner through 22 which solid waste is put in order to reduce volume and toxicity. 23 h. "Untreatable waste" shall mean that material that because of its 24 size or composition cannot be processed by a treatment facility. 25 2 The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan of 26 nineteen hundred seventy-eight shall be kept on file in the office of 27 the commissioner. The hydrogeologic zones and their attendant boundaries 28 as specified in the aforementioned plan are hereby adopted. Any changes 29 made in the boundaries and accepted by the commissioner shall be consid- 30 ered as automatically adopted for the purposes of this section. 31 3 On or after the effective date of this section and except as 32 provided herein, no person shall commence operation, including site pre_ 33 paratLon, of a new landfill or of an expansion to an existing landfill 34 which is located in a deep flow recharge area. However, the commis 35 sioner, after conducting a public hearing, may approve a limited _expan 36 sion of any existing landfill in a deep flow recharge area for the sole 37 purpose of providing for solid waste disposal capacity prior to the im 38 plementation of a resource recovery system. The commissioner shall not 39 approve any such expansion unless he finds that the owner of such land 40 fill is a municipality that is implementing a resource recovery system 41 which is acceptable to the commissioner and which will be operational no 42 later than seven years after the effective date of this section and that 43 no other feasible means of solid waste management is available, taking 44 into account technological economic and other essential factors. 45 4 On or after the effective date of this section, no person shall 46 ccmmence operation including site preparation,_ of a new landfill or of 47 an expansion to an existing landfill, which is located in the county of 48 Nassau or Suffolk outside of deep flow recharge areas unless: 49 a. The commissioner has made an affirmative determination that such 50 landfill will not pose a threat to groundwater quality; and 51 b_ The owner or operator of the landfill has posted -a financial 52 guarantee such as, but not limited to pollution liability insurance, 53 sureties, performance bonds and/or trust funds acceptable to the commis - 54 sioner securing the cost of corrective treatment or the development of 55 alternative water sources should such landfill become a source of t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 A. 6800--A roundwater, surface water, or air pollution. The size of the financial guarantee, the financial stability of the surety, and the terms of post- ing shall be determined by the commissioner. Financial surety shall also be arranged to ensure the proper operation and maintenance of leachate and other collection and treatment systems for a period of time, as determined bv the commissioner, after a landfill is closed, and c The landfill is underlain by two or more natural and/or synthetic liners each with provisions for leachate collection and has a treatment and disposal System, all of which are approved by the commissioner. An natural clay liners Shall have a minimum compacted thickness of two feet and all liners shall have a maximum hydraulic conductivity not to exceed one times ten to the minus seven centimeters per second. If the landfill uses two synthetic liners, the department shall require that the liners are of different chemical compositions; and d The landfill is designed and operated to minimize the migration of methane as or other gases beyond the facility boundaries so as to avert the creation of a nuisance or a danger to property or public health; and e. The landfill is rohibited from acce tin industrial commercial or institutional solid or liquid waste that is hazardous; and f. The landfill is not located in a freshwater wetland tidal wetland or floodplain as identified by the department_. g. Exept as provided herein, the landfill accepts only material which is the product of resource recovery, incineration or composting. Down- time waste and wastes that are untreatable by a resource recovery system may be disposed of when handled as provided in this paragraph. Downtime waste and untreatable waste that is landfilled may only be deposited in a special disposal area that is located and constructed so as to segre- gate these wastes and minimize their effect on residents of the sur- rounding area Not more than ten percent of the annual rated capacity of a resource recovery facility may be disposed of as downtime waste per ear. However, up to ten percent of the annual rated capacity of more than one resource recovery facility may be so disposed of at a single landfill. An such landfill may also accept wastes other than those authorized in this subdivision whenever such disposal is approved by the commis- sioner based upon a finding made after the opportunity for a public hearing that (i) no resource recovery facility is available to accept such waste: (ii) the owner of the landfill is making all reasonable ef- forts to implement a resource recovery system acceptable to the commis- sioner; and (iii) that the landfilling of such wastes will not have Sig- nificant adverse environmental impact In granting any such approval, the commissioner shall impose conditions necessary to mitigate any ad- verse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable and shall impose a schedule under which the municipality shall implement an ac- ceptable resource recovery system. 5 Within seven years of the effective date of this section, no person shall operate a landfill existing on the effective date of this section in the counties of Nassau and Suffolk unless: a The owner or operator of the landfill has posted a --financial, guarantee such as, but not limited to, pollution liability insurance, sureties, performance bonds and/or trust funds acceptable to the commis- sioner securing the cost of corrective treatment, or the development of alternative water sources should such landfill become a sour c<s of groundwater, surface water or air pollution. The size of the financial guarantee, the financial stability of the surety, and the terms of post OF I A. 6600--A 4 1 ing shall be determined by the commissioner. Financial surety shall also 2 be arranged to ensure the proper operation and maintenance of leachate 3 and other collection and treatment systems for a period of time is 4 determined by the commissioner, after a-1and fi 11 is c losed; an 5 b The landfill is underlain by two or more natural and/or synthetic _ 6 liners each with provisions for leachate collection, and has a treatment 7 and disposal system, all of which are approved by the commissioner. An 8 natural clay liners shall have a minimum compacted thickness of two feet 9 and all liners shall have a maximum hydraulic conductivity not to exceed 10 one times -ten to the minus seven centimeters per second. If the landfill 11 uses two synthetic liners, the department shall require that the liners 12 are of different chemical composition; and 13 C. The landfill is designed and operated to minimize the mi ration of 14 methane gas or other gases beyond the facility boundaries so as to avert 15 the creation of a nuisance or a danger to property or public health; and 16 d. The landfill does not accept industrial, commercial or institu- 17 tional solid or liquid waste that is hazardous; and _ 18 a The landfill is not located in a freshwater wetland tidal wetland 19 or floodplain as identified by the department. 20 f Except as provided herein, the landfill accepts only material which 21 is the product of resource recovery, incineration or composting. Down - 22 time waste and wastes that are untreatable by a resource recovery system 23 may be disposed of when handled as provided in this paragraph. Downtime 24 waste and untreatable waste that is landfilled may only be deposited in 25 a special disposal area that is located and constructed so as to segre- 26 gate these wastes and minimize their effect on residents of the sur - 27 rounding area Not more than ten percent of the annual rated capacity of 28 a resource recovery facility may be disposed of as downtime waste per _ 29 year. However, up to ten percent of the annual rated capacity of more 30 than one resource recovery facility may be so disposed of at a single 31 landfill. 32 If the landfill is located outside of the deep flow recharge area, 33 such landfill may also accept wastes other than those authorized in this 34 subdivision whenever such disposal is approved by the commissioner based 35 upon a finding made after the opportunity for a public hearing that (i) 36 no resource recovery facility is available to accept such waste; (�1) 37 the owner of the landfill is making all reasonable efforts to implement = 38 a resource recovery system acceptable to the commissioner; and (iii) _ 39 that the landfilling of such wastes will not have significant adverse 40 environmental impacts In granting any such approval, the.commissioner 41 shall impose conditions necessary to mitigate anv adverse environmental 42 impacts to the maximum extent practicable and shall impose a schedule 43 under which the municipality shall implement an acceptable resource 44 recovery system. 45 6 Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, the commis - 46 sioner may allow, by permit, the disposal of clean fill material in the 47 counties of Nassau and Suffolk. Such material shall not be contaminated 48 with hazardous wastes. 49 § 3. This act shall take effect on the one hundred eightieth day next 50 succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law. New York State Department of Environmental Con Building 40, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794 (516) 751-7900 - / ✓�. pies l/;•C• I/ ; �. or _ _ Adg. Date _— - ----�` Mr. William Pell III, Supervisor Town of Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Dear Supervisor Pell: ,�-- /- / (7) S r�try�ars &-' akv %11 AUG1 61983 -�J TOWN OF SCU T HOLD August 4, 1983 RE: LANDFILL Am Henry G. Williams Commissioner Two recent inspections of the Town landfill indicate some improvement in the site appearance. Some grading has been performed, paper bales were removed, and the gas venting trench extended. Many of the problems brought to your attention over the past few months remain, including: . Uncovered refuse Lack of daily cover . Uncontrolled dumping No groundwater quality data . Analysis of septage indicates high concentration of heavy metals The Town should: . Control dumping to one manageable area Submit water quality data . Place an individual in charge of the site with responsibility and authority Improve landfill equipment Decide on an operational plan, formalize and implement it Consider the sale of land gas rights. The Department offers its assistance in any of these areas. Improvements have to be made to the site or legal action will be considered. Very truly yours, ff�1MES H. HEIL, P.E. Regional Solid Waste Engineer JHH:ebp cc: H. Berger, A. Machlin, J. Maloney, R. Dean 2 ' `xCELs��Q MAURICE 0. HINCHEY ASSEMBLYMAN IOIsT DISTRICT ROOM 625 LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING ALBANY, NEW YORK 12248 (518) 455-4436 William R. Pell, III, Supervisor Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Pell: THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK July 20, 1983 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Environmental Conservation Committee Committees Local Governments Higher Education House Operations Agriculture Banks The Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation has decided to undertake a statewide review of local solid waste programs. "Chis review results from the Committee's substantial interest in local implementation of 1980 statewide Comprehensive Resource Recovery Law. This legislation was intended to respond to local concern regarding the need for alternatives to landfilling; the hearing will examine the 1980 law's effectiveness in fulfilling this purpose. Through these hearings, the Committee also intends to examine the effectiveness of Chapter 282, Laws of 1979. This law required counties to identify and report upon local inactive hazardous waste sites. These sites, in conjunction with municipal landfills, can pose threats of contamination to groundwater supplies. Their identification is an area of particular concern to the Committee. Your input to this review would be most helpful. Consequently, you are invited to testify at the hearing. A notice giving the date, times and locations is attached. The notice also lists questions which are of particular interest to the Committee. Please feel free to contact my staff, as listed on the hearing notice, with any questions that you may have. Thank you for your time and interest. MDH:mjn Att. Ori;. Adg. Date Sincerely, aurice D. Hinchey ember of Assembly THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY ? A1C ELSIUw ASSEMBLY STANDING COMtMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Subject: To determine the status of local solid waste programs in the :Mohawk Valley, Long Island and Western New York. Purpose: To examine the effectiveness of local implementation of 1980 Comprehensive Resource Recovery Legislation. CANAJOHARIE STONY BROOK East Hill Elementary School State University of New York Campus Burch Street NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Tuesday, August 23, 1983 Building #40 1:00 PM - 5:00 PM Large Conference Room (Room 113) 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM Tuesday, August 30, 1983 1:00 PM - 5:00 PM 7:00 pm -9:00 PM ROCHESTER City Hall Council Chambers 30 Church Street Wednesday, September 28, 1983 1:00 PM - 5:00 PM 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM The issue of solid waste disposal has long been a concern of municipal and county governments. To respond to local needs for alternatives to landfilling, 1980 Comprehensive Resource Recovery Legislation was enacted for the State (Chapter 552, Laws of 1980) and for the City of New York (Chapter 560, Laws of 1980). These laws encourage municipalities to adopt high and low technology alternatives to landfilling, including refuse -to -fuel production, source separation and recycling. State funding, through the 1972 Environmental Quality Bond Act, is advanced for applicable programs. In light of this State programmatic and fiscal interest in long-term solid waste management, these hearings will review the effectiveness of the 1980 legislation to development of alternatives to landfilling. The hearing will discuss projects started and completed since 1980, the status of existing municipal landfills, and the future needs of municipalities and the public. Persons wishing to testify should address their testimony to the questions listed on the back of this form. Persons wishing to present pertinent testimony to the Committee at the above hearings should complete and return the enclosed reply form as soon as possible. It is important that the reply form be fully completed and returned so that persons may be notified in the event of emergency postponement or cancellation. Oral testimony will be limited to 10 minutes duration. In preparing the order of witnesses the Committee will attempt to accommodate individual requests to speak at particular times in view of special circumstances. Such requests should be made on the attached reply form or communicated to Committee staff as early as possible. In the absence of a request, witnesses will be scheduled in the order in which they arrive at the hearing room. Ten copies of any prepared testimony should be submitted at the hearing registration desk. The Committees would appreciate advance receipt of prepared statements. In order to further publicize these hearings, please inform interested parties and organizations of the Committee's interest in hearing testimony from all sources. MAURICE D. HINCHEY, Chairman Assembly Committee on Environmental Conservation PUBLIC HEARING REPLY FORM Persons wishing to present testimony at any of the public hearings on Solid Waste Management in the Mohawk Valley, Long Island and Western New York are requested to complete this reply form as soon as possible and mail it to: Wallace John, Legislative Associate, Assembly Program and Committee Staff, State Capitol Building, Room 520, Albany, New York 12248. Phone: (518)455-4386. I plan to attend the hearing on Solid 'Waste ,Management on: August 23 I p lan to testify on NAME ORGANIZATION _August 30 September 23 August 23, August 30, ADDRESS TELEPHONE September 28 ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION PUBLIC HEARING ON THE STATUS OF LOCAL SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS IN THE MOHA`,VK VALLEY, LONG ISLAND AND WESTERN NEW YORK rsons wishing to testify should address their testimony to the following questions: Where are existing landfills a threat to New York State groundwater supplies? 2. Do federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) exemptions to small generators of hazardous waste present contamination threats to municipal landfills? 3. The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is charged with assisting local government implementation of resource recovery and solid waste projects. Does DEC have adequate resources to oversee these projects? 4. DEC solid waste regulations are contained in Part 360, NYCRR. Has compliance with Part 360 regulations effectively corrected open dumping problems, do these regulations require amendment, or do resources for enforcement need to be augmented? 5. What timetables are local governments following in order to phase out landfills and phase in resource recovery technology or recycling projects? 6. What are the economic, logistic or regulatory impediments to advancing resource recovery projects? 7. Is technology available to adequately control the emission of toxic gasses from the incineration of municipal solid wastes? HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS 125 BAYLIS ROAD, SUITE 140, MELVILLE, N.Y. 11747 • 516.752.9060 October 18, 1982 Supervisor William R. Pell, III Town. of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Greenport -Southold 201 Study GRSO 81-01 Dear Supervisor Pell: Although we have not yet received a copy of NYSDEC's response to your letter dated September 8, 1982, it is our understanding that a letter was sent to your office, and hopefully you have received and reviewed same. Further, it is our understanding that NYSDEC basically agrees with our narrative of the events that took place and concluded that they made a mistake. Given this oversight, they indicated two ways the problem could be rectified. 1) One way is to request that the Final Project Priority List (PPL) be amended. According to NYSDEC, this is a time- consuming and lengthy process that DEC does not want to get involved in. It would require that the hearings on the PPL be re -opened for public comment. 2) A second approach is for the Town to commence design and be ready for a Step 3 grant by June 30, 1983. To be con- sidered ready, draft plans and specifications must be completed and submitted to DEC for review by March 31, 1983. Providing DEC two months for review, the plans and specifications can then be submitted as a Final by June 30, 1983. The Town's project would be funded from FY 1982 funds if a FY 1982 pro- ject slips in their schedule. If all projects in population category 1 stay on schedule, the project would have to be funded from FY 1983 funds. Melvin-. Naw Yo,k a Fvmi,nM�fo N.- V-4 N..ti V, top Supervisor William R. Pell, III Town of Southold October 18, 1982 We have kept in constant touch with USEPA and NYSDEC since September 8, and have recently been advised that FY 1983 funds have been appropriated. Allocation of this appropriation to the State insures that this project will be funded during 1983. In consideration of the above events we recommend that the Town prioritize this project in order that we can jointly meet the June 30, 1983 deadline. The attached schedule in- dicates interim dates and events which should be followed in order to meet the overall project deadline of June 30, 1983. Under separate cover, we have submitted a proposal to perform administrative and engineering services during Step 2. Upon your authorization, we will immediately commence work on this project. Please call if any questions arise regarding this project. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. Gary E. Loesch, P.E. GEL/jj Enclosure cc: Town Board Members Mayor George Hubbard Superintendent James I. Monsell HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. SCHEDULE GREENPORT-SOUTHOLD SCAVENGER WASTE PROJECT Event Date 1) Complete and submit A-95 application 10/29/82 2) Submit required documentation to obtain NYS Audit and Control approval 11/5/82 3) Submit draft copy of municipal agreement between Town and Village of Greenport 11/19/82 4) Obtain decision from Shelter Island on proposed facility 11/30/82 5) Commence design inc. survey 12/8/82 6) Receive informal bids on soil borings 12/22/82 7) Commence soil borings 1/3/83 8) Submit draft User Charge System and Ordinance to NYSDEC 3/15/83 9) Submit plan of operation to NYSDEC 3/22/83 10) Submit draft Plans and Specifications 3/31/83 11) Submit Grant application 5/1/83 12) Revise as necessary, user charge system, ordinance, plan of operation and plans and specifications (assuming comments received by Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C., no later than June 1, 1983). 6/31/83 13) Obtain Step 3 grant inc. allowance for Step 2 services 9/30/83 U2811A HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. a CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS 125 BAYLIS ROAD, SUITE 140, MELVILLE, N.Y. 11747 a 516-752-9060 October 18, 1982 Supervisor William R. Pell, III and Members of the Town Board Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Southold Scavenger Waste Treatment Facilities Proposal for Step 2 Services Gentlemen: We are pleased to provide you with a proposal to perform Step 2 services during the design of the proposed scavenger waste treatment facilities. These services have been segregated into two major categories, namely: those required to meet administra- tive requirements and those provided in order to design the proposed facilities. Each category is more fully described below: I. Administrative Requirements (Step 2) 1. Provide assistance as required by the Town in meeting Federal and New York State administrative requirements. 2. Prepare A-95 application for New York State and local clearinghouse approval. 3. Provide assistance to the Town in obtaining Audit and Control approval. 4E. Provide assistance to the Town in preparing municipal agreement between the Town and Village of Greenport. Vii. Prepare user charge system and assist Town Attorney in preparing scavenger waste ordinance. Ei. Prepare plan of operation. 7. Prepare grant application, which will include Step 3 construction costs, engineering and administrative fees during Step 3 and an allowance for design. Melville. New York • Farmingdale, New York • Riverhead. New York r H�1 Supervisor and Members Page Two October 18, William R. Pell, III of the Town Board 1982 II. Engineering Services (Step 2) 1. Prepare plans and specifications and take informal bids for soil borings. Provide nominal contractor observa- tion services during borings. 2. Prepare surveys as required including field topography, test hole location stakeout, property description and computations and, drafting of plan. 3. Prepare plans and specifications for the design of an innovative/alternative (I/A) technology scavenger waste treatment facility to be constructed adjacent to the Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant. Project will most likely consist of five contracts, namely: a) site work and landscaping; b) general construction and mechanical work; c) heating and ventilation; d) plumbing and; e) electrical work. Specifically, the following sub -tasks will be performed: a. Design of Facility - including research, design, drafting, reproduction of drawings. b. Specifications - including research, writing, typing, review of typing, reproduction. C. Project Review - includes review meetings with Town of Southold, Village of Greenport, Suffolk County Department of Health Services, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States Environmental Protection Agency. d. Revisions to plans and specifications based on comments received. Our fees associated with the above referenced services are outlined below: Services Est. Fees ($) I. Adminstrative Requirements (Step 2) Tasks (1) through (7). $ 8,000.00 H2N Supervisor William R. Pell, III and Members of the Town Board Page Three October 18, 1982 Services (Con't.) Est. Fees($) II. Engineering Services (Step 2) Task (1) Soil Borings $ 9,000.00 (2) Survey 8,000.00 (3) Design 120,000.00 Sub -Total Tasks (1) through (3) $137,000.00 III. Total Administrative/Engineering Services $145,000.00 We propose to perform the above services for a lump sum of $145„000. The Town will receive an allowance for Step 2 services upon award of a Step 3 Grant. Utilizing EPA's allowance curves, a construc- tion cost of $1,315,000. and 10% contingencies, the allowance base is estimated at $90,000. Based on 92.5 percent Federal and New York State funding, the allowance is anticipated to be $83,250.00 The resultant local cost for Step 2 is estimated at $61,750.00. The :Local capital share of the entire project is therefore estimated to increase from $280,000 to $340,000. Except for contingencies ($9,900), this is entirely due to a change in the Federal requlations whereby Step 2 grants were elimi- nated and an allowance system developed. The Federal regula- tions clearly indicate that the allowance is not intended to reimburse the Town for costs actually incurred but rather it is intended to assist in defraying these costs. We have attached as Table I a revised cost estimate. At your convenience, we would be pleased to meet with you to discuss this proposal in greater detail. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. Gary E. Loesch, P.E. GEL/pak Enc. cc: Mayor George Hubbard Superintendent James I. Monsell TABLE I SOUTHOLD SCAVENGER WASTE FACILITY (C36-1120) ESTIMATE OF REVISED TOTAL AND LOCAL COSTS CAPITAL COSTS * Based on an allowance of $83,250. TOTAL ELIGIBLE LOCAL Construction $1,315,000 $1,315,000 $ 98,620 Contingencies 132,000 132,000 9,900 Step 2 Engineering 137,000 * 53,750 Step 2 Administration 8,000 * 8,000 Step 3 Engineering Services 130,000 130,000 9,750 Step 3 Administration 17,000 17,000 1,275 Interest During Construction 157,000 - 157,000 $1,896,000 $1,594,000 $338,300 * Based on an allowance of $83,250. Prendrnt 19�z�A55 L. EAWOOD KELLY r Vic, Presidrnt, FLOYD D.SNYDER PAUL F. BROWN KENNETH C. BUTTERFIELD JOHN R. SHEARER C. JEFFREY IIABER Past President JOHN F. KIRVIN Ex—tive Se etary-Tr, reT WILLIAM K. SANFORD Director ZELDA M. LITHE THE O C a I AT I O N OF TOWNS E:ecutiue Cammitt,e Mrmhrrt ROCEH ACUD CARYL CLARK OF THE "�XwnRl.Es E. DAVIS STATE OF NEW YORKa_ ~;THOMAS F. DOTI .JAMES J. CRIF17ERTY 90 State Street JOHN J. KELLY Albany, N. Y. 12207 JAMES R. LOEB ANDREW SIMONSEN, JR. Telephone Coveud Area Code 518 — 465-7933 or 465-2015 — _ MURRAY M. JAROS October 27th, 1982 William R. Pell, III, Supervisor Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Pell: As you know, we will be celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the Association of Towns at the 1983 Annual Meeting to be held at the New York Hilton Hotel, New York City, February 20th -23rd, 1983. We hope the Town of Southold is aware of the fact that it provided the Association with great leadership in one of its Past Presidents - Supervisor S. Wentworth Horton - May 1, 1943 -April 30, 1944 - which we plan to recognize during the course of this 1983 Annual Meeting. This is just a note to those towns who have been represented by Past Presidents in the Association to advise of some of the areas we have in mind for special recognition at this historic occasion. Cordially WILLIAM K.�NdFOf�A� tD Executive Secretary 1983 - the 50th Anniversary of the founding of the Association of Towns HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS 125 BAYLIS ROAD, SUITE 140, MELVILLE, N.Y. 11747 • 516-752.9060 October 18, 1982 Supervisor William R. Pell, III Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Greenport -Southold 201 Study GRSO 81-01 Dear Supervisor Pell: Although we have not yet received a copy of NYSDEC's response to your letter dated September 8, 1982, it is our understanding that a letter was sent to your office, and hopefully you have received and reviewed same. Further, it is our understanding that NYSDEC basically agrees with our narrative of the events that took place and concluded that they made a mistake. Given this oversight, they indicated two ways the problem could be rectified. 1) One way is to request that the Final Project Priority List (PPL) be amended. According to NYSDEC, this is a time- consuming and lengthy process that DEC does not want to get involved in. It would require that the hearings on the PPL be re -opened for public comment. 2) A second approach is for the Town to commence design and be ready for a Step 3 grant by June 30, 1983. To be con- sidered ready, draft plans and specifications must be completed and submitted to DEC for review by March 31, 1983. Providing DEC two months for review, the plans and specifications can then be submitted as a Final by June 30, 1983. The Town's project would be funded from FY 1982 funds if a FY 1982 pro- ject slips in their schedule. If all projects in population category 1 stay on schedule, the project would have to be funded from FY 1983 funds. Melville, New York 6 Farmingdale, New York • Riverhead. New York 7 Supervisor William R. Pell, III Town of Southold October 18, 1982 We have kept in constant touch with USEPA and NYSDEC since September 8, and have recently been advised that FY 1983 funds have been appropriated. Allocation of this appropriation to the State insures that this project will be funded during 1983. In consideration of the above events we recommend that the Town prioritize this project in order that we can jointly meet the June 30, 1983 deadline. The attached schedule in- dicates interim dates and events which should be followed in order to meet the overall project deadline of June 30, 1983. Under separate cover, we have submitted a proposal to perform administrative and engineering services during Step 2. Upon your authorization, we will immediately commence work on this; project. Please call if any questions arise regarding this project. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. Gary E. Loesch, P.E. GEL/jj Enclosure cc: Town Board Members Mayor George Hubbard Superintendent James I. Monsell . ., nnssll NLS HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. GREENPORT-SOUTHOLD SCAVENGER WASTE PROJECT LvenL Date 1) Complete and submit A-95 application 10/29/82 2) Submit required documentation to obtain NYS Audit and Control approval 11/5/82 3) Submit draft copy of municipal agreement between Town and Village of Greenport 11/19/82 4) Obtain decision from Shelter Island on proposed facility 11/30/82 5) Commence design inc. survey 12/8/82 6) Receive informal bids on soil borings 12/22/82 7) Commence soil borings 1/3/83 8) Submit draft User Charge System and Ordinance to NYSDEC 3/15/83 9) Submit plan of operation to NYSDEC 3/22/83 10) Submit draft Plans and Specifications 3/31/83 11) Submit Grant application 5/1/83 12) Revise as necessary, user charge system, ordinance, plan of operation and plans and specifications (assuming comments received by Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C., no later than June 1, 1983). 6/31/83 13) Obtain Step 3 grant inc. allowance for Step 2 services 9/30/83 r, GA- , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. a CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS 125 BAYLIS ROAD, SUITE 140, MELVILLE, N.Y. 11747 • 516-752-9060 October 22, 1982 r Councilman Lawrence Murdock, Jr. Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Greenport -Southold 201 Study GRSO 81-01 Dear Mr. Murdock: At one of our prior meetings, you asked if I would check as to whether the Town could be the Grantee for follow-up phases of the 201 program. Based on a conversation with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, this arrangement would be acceptable to them for follow-up phases which include design and construction. If any other questions arise, please call. Very truly yours, HOLZIN",ACHER, McLENDON & MURP.ELL, P.C. Gary E. Loesch, P.E. GEL/pec cc: Supervisor William R. Pell, III Melville, New York • Farmingdale, New York • Riverhead, New York New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233 Honorable George Hubbard Mayor, Village of Greenport Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, New York 11944 RE: C-361120 Village of Greenport Suffolk County Greenport/Southold 201 Dear Mayor Hubbard: �At, Covivs Adg. Date File Am r Robert F. Flacke Commissioner The draft progress schedule submitted for the above referenced project has been evaluated by this office. As indicated in our previous letter, the schedule when finalized will represent a commitment by all parties to perform the required project work by date certain and that failure to adhere to the schedule will be cause for removal of the project from the fundable portion of the priority list and referral for appropriate enforcement action if there is non-compliance with your SPDES permit or Consent Order. Our review of your schedule was based on the requirements of the project priority list and system as completed after considering the input of many commentors, the current status of the project, the past history of the project, the historical time frames required to accomplish the requirements of the program and the experience we have had with you, and your consultants on this or other projects. Based on this analysis, we have determined that finalization of your schedule is not required at this time. As stated in our recent letter to you, we have decided to modify our priority system and list to eliminate the approval of ,any Step 2+3 grants due to the need to maximize the limited construction grant funds available and our experience with the length of time historically required to prepare plans and specifications. As further stated in our letter, an advance of the allowance will be awarded to you upon approval of your facility plan, to help you initiate design of the project if the facility plan supports the current priority score and if we receive reasonable assurance that you will proceed with the project. The project will also receive additional points on subsequent project priority lists to insure sufficient priority for funding assuming additional Federal appropriations are made. You will be contacted shortly regarding the status of your project for future funding and instructions regarding resubmittal of a revised schedule. Regardless of the current status of your project and its prospects for being funded now or in the future, you should be aware of the following: 1. The Office of the State Comptroller discourages any unnecessary expenditures of funds on projects where the appropriate sewer district has not been formed or the funding authorized. You should review the applicable Town and County law which may preclude expenditure for preparation of plans and specifications. 2. Water pollution control project local financing currently can be exempted from the municipality's debt limit. However, the authority for exemption expires on December 31, 1982 and will not be reinstituted for at least a year after that date. You need to recognize this in planning your project and immediately notify this office if the project schedules must be modified. 3. Due to the limited resources we have, it is absolutely .critical that this office be kept advised of project status and any problems that develop so that the resources can be effectively utilized. For this reason, we are modifying our procedures regarding municipal contacts. You are probably aware that for expediency we have, in the past, dealt directly with your consulting engineer and thus left you, as the authorized representative, out of the grants process. In the future, all letters and most oral contacts will be made with you or your municipal representative so that your municipality is aware at all times what is happening on tine project. Conversely, we will require that all correspondence,, requests for meetings, etc. emanate from your office so that we are aware of your direct involvement. If you have any questions concerning the above, please contact me at (518) 457-3882. Sincerely, _,Aobert C�ize , .E., Chief Long Island Project Section Metropolitan Project Bureau cc: Gary Loesch, P.E. - 112M Supervisor Pell - Town of Southold f Andy Yerman - NYSDEC Region 1 John Licata - NYSDEC Region 1 ENERGY DEVELOPMENT 2A-8 Sheraton Lane Norwich, Connecticut 06360 Tel. (203) 889-9961 LONG ISLAND MICHAEL KRUG 166 Washington Avenue Brentwood, New York 11717 (516) 273-7079 May 7, 1982 Mr. William Pell Supervisor Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Dear Supervisor Pell: 'MAY s .. DR. LAWRENCE DeMANN 300 East 56 Street New York, New York 10022 (212) 935-1700 I'd like to make a record of some of what I said at the working session of your Board on the 4th of May. There have been three main influences on the cost of establish- ing MSW -Southold, NY, Ltd. since I last met with you in Decem- ber: a. A floor of 12% now exists by international agreement for export financing. b. Alternative costs of long term funds have continued to rise. C. The Federal Appelate Court decision of January 1981 con- cerning PURPA directed the Energy Regulatory Commission to change full advoidance cost to a percentage. It will most likely resolve itself in the 85 to 90% range. The U. S. Supreme Court will decide the matter. Until then full cost will be paid. EDC assumed worst case of 80%. Combined, we must charge a 12 $/ton tipping fee rising with in- flation each year and have the right to obtain a minimum of 30% of the MSW of Riverhead and all of Shelter Island. If the cur- rent rate prevails, the tipping fee will be reduced. It's up to the U. S. Supreme Court. May I suggest a way that might relieve the Board of some of its labor? Publish a short request for quote or bid stating that the Town of Southold has X t/d of MSW for disposal. You want quotes on how much tipping fee would be charged the Town if the bidder was totally responsible for disposal in anyway he wished. � ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORP. _ 2 _ May 7, 1982 The Town would guarantee a provison of site, roads, landfill for a 20:1 volume reduction, forgive taxes and provide cooling water free, if needed. It would guarantee to deliver all of its MSW free to the dump floor. It would not guarantee any loans, bonds or any type of financing beyond that required only to provide the above services. Bidder must prove to the Town that it can satisfy all govern- ment regulations to obtain construction permits and operating permits. If selected it will have 90 days to obtain financing from a first rank financial institution or another bidder may be given the same opportunity. Answers must be returned within 30 days. Prime criteria for selection will be the lowest tipping fee combined with the low- est risk to the Town. Such an approach should quickly separate the brochure peddlers from the serious suppliers of services. It would give every type of disposal a chance to be considered one against the other. All a pyrolosis unit or a compost unit or whatever re- quires is a sponsor willing to put his resources on the line. Sincerely yours, ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORP. Z 4 � � d /� 1, 7,,,,,j, e � L Robert D. Traugott President RDT/hw cc: Town Councilmen Researcn e Projects * PUblIC Policy 9 Applicatic Field Trios e Fauinmpnt nkninvc AN *4 A -tAL mom, C L --. TWEL H Afim NNUAI! 1982 is shaping up as anything but "business as usual" in the field of land application and municipal waste management. In the turbu- lent wake of major shifts in the economics of disposal, a scaled- down federal role in financing wastewater treatment facilities, and redirection of EPA regulatory activity, many of the old "givens" no longer hold. New policies are being forged, new technologies being applied, new answers are being sought, and new business opportunities are up for grabs. The program for this year's Conference has been structured to provide participants with a practical grasp of these im- portant developments and oppor- tunities. With its highly controversial moratorium on the land applica- tion of sewage sludge and the En- vironmental Protection Agency's recent retrenchment on its ocean dumping standards, New York State is currently the focus of some of the hottest policy showdowns in the country. Join us in Albany for an intensive, three- day update on these emerging directions. Learn how other waste management professionals are re- sponding to the new challenges and changing conditions; brain- storm with public officials and policymakers about the ramifica- tions of recent policy decisions; talk with leading researchers and engineers about the shape of things to come! Albany poor New York Solid Waste. Energy — Recovery;•w Soman a., PROGRAM Wednesday, May 12 Morning 9:30 A.M.-12 P.M. A MAYOR VIEWS CITY WASTES AS RESOURCES Erastus Corning 11, Mayor, City of Albany STATE-WIDE POLICY ON THE LAND APPLICATION OF SLUDGE Panel discussion exploring the far- ranging impact of the 1980 New York State decision to suspend land application of sewage sludge; its im- pact on the agricultural, academic, and community interests involved; the prospects for its revision or repeal. Norman Nosenchuck, Director, Division Of Solid Waste, N.Y. State Dept. of En- vironmental Conservation Lewis Naylor, Dept. of Agricultural Engineering, Cornell University Dennis Fagan, Clark Engineers, Corning, N.Y. Representative, N.Y. State Dept. of Agriculture and Markets PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES IN LAND APPLICATION New developments in pathogen analysis; monitoring for salmonella regrowth; establishing pathogen killpoints; composting as a disinfec- tion system. Wiley Burge and George Willson, Bio- logical Waste Management Laboratory, U.S.D.A., Beltsville, Maryland Wednesday, May 12 Afternoon 2-5 MANAGING SLUDGE ON FARMLAND Controlling Priority Pollutants in Municipal Sewage Sludge Applied to Land, Lewis Naylor, Dept. of Agri- cultural Engineering, Cornell Univer- sity Impact of Metals on Soil Biota, Ray- mond Loehr and Edwin Neu- hauser, Dept. of Agricultural Engi- neering, Cornell University New Approaches In Land Application of Sewage Sludge in Mine Reclama- tion, William Jewell, Dept. of Agri- cultural Engineering, Cornell Univer- sity Energetics of Land Application, Sarah Fast, Dept. of Entomology, Cornell University MARKETING COMPOSTED SLUDGE: HOW AND TO WHOM? An analysis of the expanding market for sludge -derived compost pro- ducts; market research; product identification; image -building; quali- ty control Frank Senske, Chief, Sludge Manage- ment Unit, City of Philadelphia Tom Correll!, Nursery Crops Specialist, U.S. Agricultural Extension Service, Suf- folk County, N.Y. Representative from the nursery trade. Thursday, May 13 Morning 9-12 LATEST COMPOSTING DEVELOPMENTS State-of-the-art survey of commun- ity and industrial composting in- stallations. Jack O'Brien, Pandullo Quirk POA (Cape May County, NJ Project) Richard Noland, Burgess & Niple (Col- umbus, Ohio Project) Randy Hershey, Barton & LOjuidice (Plattsburgh, NY Project) George Crombie, Director, of Public Works, Durham, N.H. Andrew Higgins, Rutgers University (Middletown, NJ Project) Eliot Epstein, E&A Environmental Con- sultants, Recent European Composting Developments A ;ITE WASTE MANAGEMENT 'ELOPMENTS ombardo, Lombardo & Associates, options For Small Towns: The dstock, N.Y. Story d DetPorto, Solar Compost Toilet -m arsday, May 13 :ernoon 2-5 iRCE SEPARATION AND OURCE RECOVERY and local recycling programs depressed economy; legislative -oaches; innovative programs; «ity. 1 Bogardus, New York State Energy e :y Wolf, New York Environmental :n Coalition r Sheil, Director, New Jersey State e of Recycling nas Hroncich, Commissioner, I of Islip, N.Y. I DFILL GAS ACTIVITY IN V YORK STATE Idup of methane recovery pro - in New York. Bogardus, New York State Energy a .1POST QUALITY AND TURITY 'o deBertoldi, University of Pisa, 'ranco Zucconi, University of �s. A Comparison of Three row Composting Systems. Dan Dindal, SUNY Syracuse. Adventures in the Decomposer Food Web. Thursday, May 13 Evening 8 P.M. -10 P.M. THE POLITICS OF SLUDGE Open format discussion of the social and political ramifications of sludge utilization: why sludge is so sensitive an issue, methods for building a positive image for land application, counteracting the damaging effects of bad information, building a visi- ble constituency for land applica- tion, etc. program continued on next page. /4,4t25 youlz &-<cERy,-71_4v� Novel land `RAJ REGISTRATION' F®RM Twelfth Annual Composting and e taste Recycling Conference 1 May 12-14,1982 • Albany, N.Y. Please register me for the 1982 Com- ❑ Payment of $155 enclosed 1 posting and Waste Recycling Conference. ❑ Please send invoice The registration fee is $155. ❑ Send additional informatiol information on accommodations at the Charge my credit card: Ramada Inn in Albany will be sent upon visa -_master Charge receipt of this form. (Please make checks credit card No., payable to The JG Press.) Expires Signature ' Name 1 Affiliation 1 Address 1 City state Zip Pqj The JG Press, Inc., Box 351C, Emmaus, Pennsylvania 18049 ' Register by phone (215) 967-4135 A Friday/, May 14 Morning 10-12 FINANCING WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES Panel discussion exploring the rami- fications of changes in federal fund- ing of municipal treatment systems. Strategies for coping. Where do we go from here? John Walker, Acting Director, Municipal Technology Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Larry Silverman, Executive Director, American Clean Water Association John LaVale, Town Supervisor, Woodstock, N.Y. Nora Goldstein, Associate Editor, BioCycle Magazine REFUSE SHREDDING AND WASTES -TO -ENERGY An introduction to Albany's new ANSWERS facility, an 800 -ton per day shredding system that fuels two 100,000 pound -per -hour boilers to supply steam heat for downtown of- fice buildings. Patrick Mahoney, Smith & Mahoney Anthony Nollet, AENCO, Inc. FILL® TRIPS Field Trip to the ANSWERS Solid Waste Recovery Facility—mag- netic separators, shredding, composting, metal recycling, fuel recovery, steam genera- tion. Visit to the Solar Compost Toilet Units currently being evaluated in the Albany City Park System. (Bus transportation to the sites provided; buses will return you to hotel or airport.) IL CONFERENCE OBJECTIVES To provide a "state of the art" update on the land application of sewage sludge—its use on farm- land and for strip mine reclama- tion, its changing regulatory environment, its public health aspects, and the expanding research into the nature and pro- perties of sludge. To present examples of success- ful municipal and industrial composting projects, and to as- sess the expanding market for sludge -derived Compost products. To analyze how policy shifts at the state and national level are likely to affect the utilization of sludge and the financing of municipal treatment facilities. To discuss successful source sep- aration ,and resource recovery programs and consider strategies for their proliferation. Place Stamp Here Box 351 Emmaus, PA 18049 We enclose herewith a copy of the "Selected Plan Report" for the Greenport -Southold Drainage Basin. A public hearing will be scheduled in late June/early July in order to provide an opportunity for additional community input into the study. Your early review of the enclosed in accordance with this schedule is greatly appreciated. GEL/mf Enc. cc: Supervisor William R. Pell, III Mayor George W. Hubbard /T.:Q. MEMO TO: Superintendent James I. Monsell Robert Knizek, P.E. Gary Kline, P.E. John Licata, P.E. Damon Urso Vito Minei, P.E. Dr. Lee Koppelman FROM: Gary E. Loesch, P.E. DATE: May 5, 1982 SUBJECT: Greenport -Southold 201 Study GRSO 81-01 We enclose herewith a copy of the "Selected Plan Report" for the Greenport -Southold Drainage Basin. A public hearing will be scheduled in late June/early July in order to provide an opportunity for additional community input into the study. Your early review of the enclosed in accordance with this schedule is greatly appreciated. GEL/mf Enc. cc: Supervisor William R. Pell, III Mayor George W. Hubbard /T.:Q. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation T Regulatory Affairs Unit Bldg. 40; SUNY --Room 219 Stony Brook, NY 11794 (516) 751-7900 Robert F. Flacke Commissioner April 26, 1982 Mr. Robert Traugott Energy Development Corporation 2A-8 Sheraton Lane Norwich, CT 06360 RE: MSW -Southold, New York, Ltd., applications for NYSDEC permits to construct a municipal Solid Waste to Energy Facilitys Southold, New York Dear Mr. Traugott: Enclosed herewith are the necessary permits required by this Department for the construction of the above noted facility --namely: j( Permit #52 -E -01 --pursuant to Article 27, Title 7, Part 360 Permit #47-3800-3680-00001 pursuant to Article 19, 6NYCRR, Part 201 Permit #W-3265 pursuant to Article 15, Title 15 (Water Supply) Please note the General and Special Conditions attached to each permit and the further requirements to file with this Department for permits or certific- ates to "operate" the facility. Sincerely, 4UVOW-_ *0 David DeRidder Associate Environmental Analyst cc: D. J. Middleton, without enclosure D. J. Larkin, without enclosure A. Machlin, without enclosure R. Capp, without enclosure M. Bruckman, without enclosure A. Candela, without enclosure DD:cz R. Grover, Greenman -Pedersen Associates, without enclosure Enclosure JUDITH T. TERRY To%r1' CLERK R1:(;ISI'RAR 01 VITAL SI \I ISFICS ' L PV OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 6, 1982 H. A. Dombeck, P.E, Vice President Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. 125 Baylis Road Melville, New -York 11747 Dear Harold: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 The Southold Town Board at a regular meeting held on May 4, 1982 adopted a resolution Part I and Part II of your proposal for engineering services in conjunction with Solid Waste Disposal: I. Establish Solid Waste Disposal Quantities - cost not to exceed $1,500.00. II. Determine Existing and Projected Costs of Disposal of Solid Waste by Landfilling - cost not to exceed $5,800,00. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk 0 9 a s' AA HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS April 14, 1982 Supervisor William Pell and Members of the Town Board Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Proposal for Engineering Services in Conjunction with Solid Waste Disposal Gentlemen: H2M is pleased to submit this proposal for engineering ser- vices, in conjunction with Solid Waste Disposal. As discussed at the Town Board Meeting of April 6th, we have divided our ser- vices into three categories. These are: I - Establish Solid Waste Disposal Quantities II - Determine Existing and Projected Costs of Disposal of Solid Waste by Landfilling III - Evaluate Proposals for Disposal of Solid Waste Each of these categories are separately defined and the scope of services -proposed is described. I - Establish Solid Waste Disposal Quantities The disposal of solid waste in Southold is performed by residents and private carters. Both groups dispose of waste at the Cutchogue landfill facility which is operated by the town. Entrance to the landfill is controlled by one entrance located off of North Road. In November 1980 in the East End Solid Waste Management Study, H2M estimated Southold's average waste quantity as 93 tons per day (1978) and its monthly variation maximum to mini- mum as 1.89:1. Attached are copies of Table 2-11, Solid Waste Quantities for 1978, and Figure 2-3, Estimated Monthly Solid Waste Distribution - Southold. It is the objective of this task to determine the present waste quantities. Specifically, this will be accomplished as follows: Melville. New York • Farminodale. New York • Riverhead. New York c Supervisor William Pell and Members of the Town Hoard, Town of Southold -2- April 14, 1:982 A. H2M will establish a procedure for obtaining the number of vehicles and vehicle contents. H. Town personnel, during two (2) - two week periods in April and July, will count vehicles entering the landfill facility. C. H2M will provide the town with the number of private cars, pickup trucks and stake body trucks whose contents shall be weighed by town personnel during each of the two survey periods. The number of the samples shall be determined utilizing statis- tical techniques to provide for a confidence limit of at least 85 percent on the data generated. D. H2M will perform a telephone survey of the private carters reported to utilize the landfill during the survey period. This survey will obtain the capacity of the collection vehicles. E. Lastly, H2M will compute the waste quantity utilizing the data previously obtained. A letter report will be prapared summarizing the results. II - Determine the Existing and Projected Costs of Disposal of Solid Waste by Landfilling The present practice of waste disposal at Southold is to an unlined, uncapped landfill facility. The existing facility does not provide for methane venting or periodic monitoring of the ground water. Accordingly, the present costs of disposal are minimal. H2M will prepare a matrix of costs which will present exist- ing and projected costs for the following alternatives: A. Continuation of landfilling municipal solid waste 1. Present costs with unchanged practices 2. Projected costs with - meeting Part 360 practices (includes capping, methane venting, with and without lining and groundwater monitoring) a) Without source separation, but in- cluding separation of brush and demolition waste. Supervisor William n211 and Members of the Town Board, Town of Southold -3- April 14, 1932 b) With source separation, including separation of brush and demolition waste. B. Continue landfilling, but only of residue, brush and demolition wastes 1. With capping, but without lining and other Part 360 requirements 2. With capping and lining and other Part 360 reczuiremen.ts The costs determined above will be described in a brief report. After presentation of the report, we will reviev/ the re,,ort with the Town Boar?. TTI - Evaluate Proposals for Disposal of Solid waste T:":e Town of Southold has received two unsolicited prCiposals for disposal of solid waste (E.D.C. Southold Ltd., �cJisal) and expect: to receive a third proposal. Each proposer c ff er s *Co process all of the t,wn's solid waste for a tipping fee and to offset other, costs and provide a profit, sell recovered energy and metals. ' H2M will meet with each offerer, review the proposals far the town and evaluate each for the factors listed :.elow: a. Previous experience of the offerer b. Previous experience of the process c. Feasibility and reliability of the process d. Risks the town will atisume e. Risks the proposer assumes f. Financial aspects - tipping fee, re- visions to the tiox)ing fee. Additional cos ts; b,enef its to the town g. Profit participation h. S3)ecia.l considerations - out of town waste i. Residue disposal j. Bypass - waste to be disposed when system is not operating k. Environmental considerations - air, potable water, wastewater, land, traffic, permits required I- h Supervisor William Pell ; and Members of the Town Board, Town of Southold -4- April 14, 1932 1. Administrative aspects - insurances, bonds, operations/operator M. Special conditions/r'equiraments of the offerer The proposers will be questioned, when applicable, when in- formation appears to be missing from their proposals. in addition, H2M will present a discussion of the overall risks and benefits of the town proceeding with outside vendors versus a) continued landfilling or b) providing its own solutions (incineration, resource recovery). The previous information will be summarized in a report for- mat. Two meetings with the Town Board will be included to review the report and answer questions raised. Our proposed fees and schedule for the services previ-:}usly described are as follOws: I - Establish Solid Waste Disposal Quantities - at hourly rates of compensation with a not to exceed lilnit of $1,500.00. The report for the April aind July samp . ing will be furnished within 10 business days after receipt of the information from Supt. Dean. II - De,`termine Existing and Projected Costs of Disposal of Solid Waste by Landfilling - at hourly rates of compensation with a not to exceed limit of $5,300.00. The report would be com- pleted within six (6) weeks after receipt of your aut'-lorization to proceed, but not earlier than four (4) weeks after the July solid waste survey is completed by town personnel. III - Evaluate Proposals for Disposal of Solid Waste - at hourly rates of compensation with an estimate of $11,100.00. Due to the undefined nature of the proposals and difficulty in estimating the time required to contact the offerers to seek in- formation, we cannot provide a not to exceed cost. We will en- deavor to meet the estimate and will immediately advise the Town Board should the estimate not be sufficient. H2M will not pro- coed beyond the estimated cost without additional authorization. This phase can be completed within five (5) weeks after your authorization to proceed. Hourly rates of compensation are defined as the total pay- roll costs of employees directly assigned to the project plus 1.35 times the total payroll costs for overhead and profit al- lowance. Services will be invoiced monthly as work is completed. i Supervisor William Pell and Members of the Town Board, Town of Southold -S- April 14, 1982 Should you have any questions, please call our office. if you wish us to proceed, we would request an authorizing resolution. Thank you for your continued confidence in our firm. HAD:vm cc: Supt. Raymond C. Dean Very truly yours, "HEN DON & MURRELL , P.C. 64— H. A. Domb! k, P.E. Vice President TABLE 2-11 SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES FOR 1978 - TONS Monthly Variation Max/Avg 1.3437 1.2789 1.2705 1.3754 1.3373 1.322 Min/Avg 0.5781 0.6771 0.6705 0.5691 0.5783 0.614 (a) Obtained from Southampton Landfills records. (b) Obtained from Previous Part 360 Studies and revised for seasonal population. 20 (a) River- (b) East- Shelter Southampton Head(b) Southold Hampton Island Total January 4,600 2,000 2,100 1,500 200 10,400 February 3,700 1,800 11900 1,200 160 8,760 March 5,700 2,300 2,500 1,900 250 12,650 April 6,000 2,900 3,100 2,000 260 14,260 May 7,100 3,100 3,300 2,300 300 16,100 June 8,300 3,000 3,200 2,700 360 17,560 July 8,600 3,400 3,600 2,900 370 18,870 August 8,500 3,300 3,500 2,800 370 18,470 September 8,200 2,700 2,900 2,700 360 16,860 October 6,300 2,900 3,100 2,100 270 14,670 November 4,900 2,500 2,700 1,600 210 11,910 December 4,900 2,000 2,100 1,600 210 _10,810 TOTAL 76,800 31,900 34,000 25,300 3,320 1_71,320 Monthly Average 6,400 2,659 2,833 2,108 277 14,277 Monthly Variation Max/Avg 1.3437 1.2789 1.2705 1.3754 1.3373 1.322 Min/Avg 0.5781 0.6771 0.6705 0.5691 0.5783 0.614 (a) Obtained from Southampton Landfills records. (b) Obtained from Previous Part 360 Studies and revised for seasonal population. 20 23 FIGURE N' 2-3 4-- 3600 0 3500 0 3300 32000 32 v 3 3100 3100 2900 2700 0 2500 w2100 2100 2 1900 _0 J 0 N 0 Il cn z 0 E- 0 JAN FES MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 1978 ESTIMATED MONTHLY SOLID WASTE DISTRIBUTION SOUTHOLD EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON, SOUTHOLD AND N.Y. S.D.E.C. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / 1-12M CORP. ARMINGDALE NY CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD N Y NEWTON N J 23 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS 125 BAYLIS ROAD. t.^ELVILLE, N Y tt..: / cr May 4, 1982 / F7;!s r ` Supervisor William R., Pell, III and Members of the Town Board Town Hall, Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Enclosed pleAse find two (2) copies of our report entitled "Selected Plan Report" for the Inc. Village of Greenport and Town of Southold Section 201 Waste- water Facility Plan, dated May 1982. Should any questions arise during your review of the enclosed please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. Gar E. Loesch, P.E. Project Director GEL/pak Enc. cc: Mayor George W. Hubbard Superintendent James I.. Monsell HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS RECEIVED APR g 1982 April 8, 1982 Town Clerk Southold lair. Rgymond C. Dean Superintendent of Highways Town of Southold Department of Highways Peeonic Lane Peeonic, New York 11958 Re: Town of Southold -- Solid Waste Volumes Dear Superintendent Dean: Pursuant to the meeting with the Town Board on April E, 1982, T am enclosing the following procedure to determine the solid waste volumes at the 'Town landfill facility. Briefly, we recominend, two weeks of vesicle counts. In addi- tion, we also recommend that the different vehicles contents be weighed.. ��e will provide you with the nundber of ve_�a-�z�►^ of each class to be weighed to ,provide statistical confidence. This study should co�wience irinediately and run continuously for two weeks. An identical study performed during, the period of 'July 5 to 18 should also be implemented. Please call myself or Gary Loesch should you have any questions: Very truly yours, 7;HOLZMACC , ENDON >& 14URP,ELL, P,. C . H. A. Dombeck, P.E. HAD/pak Enc. cc: Supervisor William R. Pell, I,II Members of the Town Board Melville, New York • Farmingdale, New York 6 Riverhead, New York RECEIVED, APR 91982 Town Clerk Southold PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING SOLID WASTE QUANTITY APRIL 81 1982 1. The study should be performed for two consecutive weeks, each and every day the landfill is open, each,and every hour it is open. 2. The number of vehicles in each category should be counted by the hour. The owner of each solid waste collection truck should be listed. 3. After the first week's data is collected, H2M will review same and advise Superintendent Dean of how many vehicles in each category should have their contents weighed. 4. Attached is a supply of survey forms. i I L19Y. 1, t1NVL' NAME(S) OF OBSERVERS: JEEPS OR VANS OR FLAT BED SOLID WASTE NOTES PRIVATE PICKUP OR STAKE COLLECTION LIST OWNERS OF HOUR CAR TRUCKS BODY TRUCKS TRUCKS* ALL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION TRUCKS 8 AM — 9 AM 9 AM — 10 AM 10 AM — 11 AM 11 AM — 12 N 12 N — 1 PM 1 PM — 2 Pini 2 PM — 3 PM 3 PM — 4 PM 4 PM — 5 PM 5 PM — 6 PM * OWNERS OF ALL VEHICLES TO BE LISTED IN "NOTES" COLUMN DATE: DAY: WEATHER: TEMP. RANGE: NAME (S) OF OBSERVERS: JEEPS OR PRIVATE HOUR CAR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SOLID WASTE QUANTITY SURVEY VANS OR FLAT BED SOLID WASTE NOTES F�CF:UP OR STAKE COLLECTION LIST OWNERS OF TRUCKS BODY TRUCKS TRUCKS* ALL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION TRUCKS y, r o• w S� i 1 r ` DATE: DAY: WEATHER: TEMP. RANGE: NAME (S) OF OBSERVERS: JEEPS OR PRIVATE HOUR CAR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SOLID WASTE QUANTITY SURVEY VANS OR FLAT BED SOLID WASTE NOTES F�CF:UP OR STAKE COLLECTION LIST OWNERS OF TRUCKS BODY TRUCKS TRUCKS* ALL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION TRUCKS _ _ . I. COUNCILMEN John J. Nickles Lawrence Murdock, Jr. Francis J. Murphy Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. Raymond W. Edwards, Jr. COUNCILMEN TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 MAR 161982 t0w,1 Wow TELEPHONE (516) 765-1891 This is an open letter to the Southold Town Board, the North Fork Environmental Council, the League of Women Voters, and any other individual or organization in the Town of Southold who is interested in the future of the Town of Southold as affected by the environmental and fiscal impact to the Town caused by the handling of municipal solid waste and septic sludge. T am prompted to address this subject by an article in a newspaper dated March 9, 1982 about the Towns of Babylon and Huntington through Multi -Town Solid Waste Management Authority reaching a decision on a firm to build, design, and operate a garbage to energy plant. Also, to partially finance. The article talked to the concerns of the people of Babylon and Huntington because the company involved has no experience in construct- ion or operation of the European design garbage to energy plant and the establishment of a joint venture with the inventor of that technology, a German firm. This subject has been the object of many hours of discussion between the Town Board of the Town of Southold, the North Fork Environmental Council, the League of Women Voters, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Dick Storz, Merlon Wiggins, Lovisa Construction Corporation, and Energy Development Corp- oration, both singly and jointly. The firm selected does plan to finance forty percent (40%) of the construction costs which is conceived to be a deciding factor in the selection of that firm. Since 1974 when the firm first estimated cost of construction at $64,000,000.00, to now when Multi -Town agreed to sign the same plan the contract price rose to $145,000,000.00. Nothing else changed, just the cost, 125% more. H2M has prepared the Five Town Solid Waste Report which addressed the cost in 1980 dollars of composting, source separation, and recycling, transporting garbage to other facilities, pelletizing, continued land filling, etc. H2M also prepared the 201 Wastewater Treatment Plan and the 208 Landfill Program. I believe their efforts cover all aspects of town problems and a sufficient overview of these problems. There has been much discussion of late to hire an engineering firm to address these subjects again. Because of this decision by Multi -Town and the similarity of the concerns addressed by Multi -Town and the Town of Southold, I have decided that if the New York State Department of Con- servation gives a favorable reply to Energy Development Corporation's permit application, I will move as vigorously as I can,as one town board member, to bring negotiations to a conclusion. Factors in my decision are (1) the tremendous increase in construct- ion cost while debating; (2) the amount of engineering already done on behalf of the Town of Southold by H2M-; (3) the time spent in discussion already about the factors involved; (4) the expressed willingness by I °A two firms Lovisa Construction and Energy Development Corporation to finance all or part of the facility as well as build and operate; (5) I perceive the time to hire more engineering expertise is on a site specific basis to help the Town Board evaluate and formulate final proposals. I ask any Town Board member who feels the need for more studies and more engineering evaluation to move forward quickly and get the help he needs to prepare himself to act. These problems in Southold Town will not go away themselve and constructions costs are climbing at alarming rates. So that t time saved can save the Town of Southold much money. Lawrence Murdock, Jr., uncilman Town of Southold Multi -Town Chooses Contra 2 Suffolk towns said to pick Houston firm, European system for $145-m By Mark McIntyre Babylon—A major Houston waste dis- posal firm has been chosen to design, build and operate Lang Island's largest garbage -to -energy plant, sources said yesterday. It will cost about $145 million and will rely on European technology now in use in 54 plants overseas to burn the garbage of Huntington and Babylon, the sources said. The board of the Multi-Tavm Solid Waste Management Authority was to meet this morning to take a formal vote approving Browning-Ferris Industries Inc. of Houston as its preferred contrac- tor, the authority sources said. A con- struction contract NN it l be negotiated by mid -summer. The plant, whose cost was estimated at $64 million in 1974, when the first engineering study for Nfulti-Town was done, has been delayed repeatedly by po- litical differences among Suffilk towns and recently attracted strong citizen op- position about its size, location and po- tential for harm to the environment. The plant, discussions on which started in 1969, would be the Island's largest and most expensive garbage plant and the first to market both steam and electric- ity. The two authority sources, who de- clined to be quoted by name, confirmed the choice of Browning-Ferris over two other garbage companies, Universal Oil Products of Des Plaines, Ill., and Whee- labrator -Frye Inc. of Hampton, N.H. A decisive factor was that Browning-Ferris agreed to put up $40 million of its own money for the plant's construction. "That's a lot of tin," one source said. A state source familiar with Multi- - i .... .......... ..l..,y....._ - ..,,a i yn':Nasff�"k'K�oi.�.:-... MS+V. .-(ts ^.:Ch ., a...WT-LT�`C(t i.Y,y...4M�! .ihhw,'.i1.-A , "k iV.f'i4✓ > ": ,,: revenue bonds. The bond sale, expected this fall, will total about $150 million; the rest of the money is to cover the plant's landfill and waste -water treatment plant, which are not in the firms' propos- als, an authority source said. Many key financial details are yet to be determined, including the tipping fee for garbage delivered at the plant, how Multi -Town and Browning-Ferris will share an estimated $25 million in annu- al revenues, and, perhaps most impor- tant, who is li6ie—either taxpayers, Multi -Town or the operator—for unfore- seen risks. Browning-Ferris has no experience in construction or operation of a European - design, garbage -to -energy plant like the one it proposes for Multi -Town, Cliff Jesaberger, president of the firm's ener- gy systems division, said last week. To ease fears about its lack of exper- ience, the company will forge an unusual joint venture with the inventor of that technology, Deutsche -Babcock & Wilcox AG of Oberhausen, Germany. Deutsche - Babcock developed its garbage -plant technology in Dusseldorf in 1961 and has built 54 such plants in Europe and Asia since then --about one third of the world's mass -burning garbage plants. The 2,250 -ton -a -day plant will use wa- terwall-incineration technology. The walls of its furnaces are tubes of water. As the garbage burns, water is converted to steam that will heat the nearby Pil- grim Psychiatric Center and produce electricty for sale to the Long Island Lighting Co. The process is known as mass -burning because the refuse is burned in a mass and ferrous metals are recovered later. NErapsteadt' Ges19n caPacky: 2,800 ions pe TOW capital cost: $130 M113 n EWeAcal output tD LILC0 30,n Start-up date: August 1978 Oystw say- pes!gn �pa�y: 1,oD8 torus tw, �_ ',}. 'i:C7 r.4iyfp•rsv'1 ...t....n„ � ..,�...:, .-_...,, ...,,. tae r rEdg ewcate._ 1 �_ ',}. 'i:C7 r.4iyfp•rsv'1 ...t....n„ � ..,�...:, .-_...,, ...,,. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK C r � � OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE File PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE C.E. Edgar, III Colonel, Corps of Engineers Department of the Army NZew England Division 424 Trapelo Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02254 Dear Colonel Edgar, JOHN C: GALLAGHER CHIEF DEPUTY MIar ch 11, 1982 e=�:__` 1 7 11982 F± �f TOWN OF SOUTr`OL3 j The purpose of this letter is to convey comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Desig- nation of a Disposal Site for Dredged Material in lVestern Long Island Sound Z1LIS III, recently released by the New England Division of the Corps. Many of the concerns raised in my January 13, 1982 correspondence on the Draft EIS remain to be adequately addressed. ' The final EIS does not include any quantitative information on the type, quality and aunt of d-rre�dd spoil to be dumped at the proposed western Long'! -F. red Sound alsposa site. The inclusion of a list of federally authorized channels that could potentially use the 1V'LIS III site does not provide the necessary information. As data from the Environmental Atlas (CE, 1980B), which reportedly has descriptions of the sediments expected to be found in the various harbors subject to dredging was not included in the Final.EIS, I reauest under Freedom of Information provisions that a copy of the Atlas be sent to this office. As the New England Division will ultimately make the decision to designate a disposal site in western Long Island Sound, and since harbors in New York have been identified as potential users of this site, the Division must be familiar with the quality and quantity of spoil found in the -New York harbors. Therefore, I request that sediment information for these areas also be furnished to Suffolkr County. VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAU0PAUGE, N.Y. 1 1788 IS 1 61 360-A000 Page 2 March 1.1 , 1982 I would also like to receive the Division's official response in writing to the follor,ing c aesdons: 1. What Corps of Engineers' actions remain to be taken before a decision on des`_gnation of WLIS III is made. When will these actions be taken? 2. If the Corps decides to proceed with the designation of WLIS III, when will this decision be made? 3. Given that 7#2 occurs, when will spoil disposal at WLIS III be intiated? 4. If the sediments from a particular dredging project fail to meet the applicable criteria for open water disposal, what will the response cf the Corps be in its review of the applicable per -nit application? Assuming that there is a need =or the dredging how will the contaminated spoil be handled? 5. For what period of time will WLIS III be used if it is designated? Thank you for your timely response to these requests. S' erely yours, TER F. COHAL_LN SUFFOLK COL`S^Y EXECUTIVE PFC/tr cc: Frank R. Jones, Deputy County Executive David Tomey, New England Division Lee Koppelman, Planning Director S.C. Eugene Kelley, Assistant Counts Attorney All Town Supervisors Jerome Ambro Lovisa Construction Co., Inc. Contractors In N 346 Westbury Avenue and Enaineers Awff Care Race, New York 11514 (516)333-9200 (212)343-1336 March 11,1982 Mr. William Pell,III LTOWN Supervisor Town of Southold t� Main Road 1 21982 Southold, New York, 11971 Re: Lovisa Construction Co., Inc. Proposal SOUTHOLD MSW Energy Plant Dear Sir: Since our last meeting we have been informed that the incineration units we had intended to furnish for the MSW Plant, Town of Southold, will be increasing in cost approximately 8%. Naturally, this represents a considerable sum of money and would as a result, increase our projected costs. There is, however, a bright side to this picture. That is , three 50 -ton units are available currently and are in production for a facility project that had been cancelled. The manufacturer is completing the units, and shall offer them for sale shortly at competetive prices. We would hope that perhaps Southold could act quickly, enabling us to secure at the old prices these units. We appreciate your response and comment. Very truly yours, ,, L Richard Storz RS:edg CC: Merlon Wiggin ICF,_ ---T_ // i no RESOURCE TECHNOLOGY C ORP ORATION RECEIVED February 19, 1982 F E8 2 6 i962 Town Clerk Southold Mr. Lawrence Murdock, Jr., Councilman Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Murdock: We are in the process of our annual update of the American Iron and Steel Institute Blue Book, entitled "Solid Waste Processing Facilities." That publication is a compendium of resource recovery projects in various stages of development and implementation in the United States and Canada. To facilitate our update, we are requesting that the principal contact, as well as the alternate contacts, for each project update last year's entry. Enclosed is a copy of the report for your project that appeared in the 1981 edition. It would be appreciated if you could review this information and update it to reflect the current status. So that your project's report will accurately reflect the current status in the 1982 Blue Book, please feel free to amplify or change any points you feel appropriate and provide any missing information. It would also be helpful to receive copies of any background, promotional, or news articles on your project. Please reply before March 15, 1982 so that your input can be included. We hope that the 1982 issue of the Blue Book will be most comprehensive and useful. Your help in streamlining our efforts is sincerely appreciated. Sincerely, RESOURCE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION Ronald D. Kinsey, President RDK/lm Enclosure 20480 Pacifica Drive Suite G 0 Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 996-8611 NEW YORK, Southold RECLAMATION SYSTEM STATUS SUMMARY PRINCIPAL CONTACT Lawrence Murdock, Jr., Councilman Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-1801 ESTIMATED TONS/DAY: 100 WASTES COLLECTED BY CURRENT DISPOSAL METHOD Landfill CURRENT PROJECT STATUS: Planning - evaluating available technology. SYSTEM DESIGNED FOR PROCESS RECLAMATION OF Electricity Rol -A -jet PROJECT SCHEDULE START Construction (tentative) Fall, 1981 OWNER Contractor OPERATOR Contractor ALTERNATE CONTACT TYPE: Residential/Commercial PLANNED DISPOSAL METHOD Resource Recovery TONS/DAY MARKETS Long Island Lighting STATUS Planning COMPLETE CONTRACTOR Spring, 1984 Energy Development Corp. and Trofe & Sons -540- ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $10 million s' 1 NEW YORK, Southhold PROJECT HISTORY Southold, a town of 20,000 people, originally planned to be a part of a $75 million, 5 town resource recovery project in Southhampton. However, Southold's share of the project would cost the town about $15 million initially, and $3 million per year to participate. The Town Board was of the opinion that Southold could not handle this level of funding and withdrew from the project. Initially Southold evaluated Consumat modular systems but could not find steam customers to support the project. Long Island Lighting is interested in electricity, however. As of May, 1981, the Town is discussing the possibility of implementing a plan proposed by Energy Development Corporation (EDC) of Connecticut and their construction contractor, Trofe do Sons. This consortium owns a patent for a system termed "Rol -a -jet" which burns refuse and generates high pressure steam suitable for electrical generation. No firm contract terms have been negotiated, but preliminary estimates are that the installed price complete could be about $10 million, and $300,000 - 400,000 per year operating and maintenance costs are forecast. The, Town Board must agree to the plan, public hearings must be held, permits secured, etc. A contract could be signed with EDC by the fall of 1981, and with a 2 year construction cycle, the facility could be operational by January, 1984. The contractor will finance, construct, and operate the facility. -541- n lc�. r _n ' r wor8 t case', n in.eer says w ire.,r co-muldn"'t PV OW 'o By CHRIS BIDDLE of municipal garbage, it has never 11.2 Of the BCT Staff been used to burn hazardous — MOUNT LAUREL — The worst wastes. ....... accident that could occur at Trofe What follows is Hladun's cde^ . Incineration, says its engineer, scription of how the system would "aN would be for a 5,000 -gallon tanker to work, using the industrial chemical 1e4� burst into fire and drop its load of PCB's as an example. flaming toxic chemicals on the con- The incinerator has two main bep trete loading pad. combustion chambers, one for solid: ; awc A cloud of dark smoke and fumes, wastes, the other for liquid wastes, would rise toward cars driving Attached to the end of the combus to F, along two superhighways that bor- tion chambers is a three -stage pol=".. )It der the Mount Laurel firm, but be- lution control system. luoi fore the flames would have a The solid waste combustion_,: elle chance to roar into an intensely hot chamber looks like a large cement _ fire, they would be extinguished. mixer. The liquid waste combustiod Pep A triple safety system would con- chamber is a 60 -foot -long refractory aur tain the fire, then snuff it out. The tunnel lined with 18 -inch -thick walls A S fire would last for no more than two of fire brick. minutes, too short a time for fumes A full 24 hours before the burn of De to build up to dangerous levels of liquid PCB's (polychlorinated bith a toxicity. enyls) the tunnel would be fired and )N First, the chemicals would drop slowly brought up to a temperature, _ 'o` into a concrete basin large enough of about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit. ue to contain a full tanker load. Noz- Then tanker trucks filled with un zles which ring the basin would au- the chemical would be hooked up di TEI tomatically go off; smothering the rectly to a line feeding into the com- [ It, fire with foam. If all else failed, a bustion chamber. A myriad of noz-uo device called the "hayloft" would zles would spray the chemical di- 'K be released. ' rectly into the heated combustion da With the pull of a lever, 300 tons (Continued on Page A2) p` of sand would drop on the fire - and )"` in a flash it would be - -._BCT delivers '- 'u The whiff of smoke inhaled by .. _ ,1 people driving along the nearby Sample co lies . 1 highways would be virtually harm- r t" I Iess, according to the engineer. I The Burlington County Times "It would be far worse if a truck delivering a free sam le of tod full' of chemical wastes broke and caught fire on the highway," engi- p ay�s newspaper to former subscribers of 3f the Philadelphia Bulletin neer Ken Hladun said.-.,. Hladun made his remarks and otli-.;'- y ers- : . We would like to remind those`. Thursday before taking public offi- 1 who may be reading the BCT for cials and others on a tour of Trofe's the first time that you may sub - full scale demonstration incinera- scribe to the BCT by calling any oi; - ` for which sits in the bowels of the. the following home delivery num-` Mount Laurel plant. The remarks were part of a pres- hers at any time, seven days r .� week, from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m, entation in which Hladun explained how the incinerator and its t : Our toll-free home delivery ;y emer- gency and pollution control systems numbers are: - Willingboro ..........., 871-8001 i. work. Although the system has been Evesham . ... ...........871-8001 7722 Moorestown used to make demonstration burns ..........:.........:.234-0153 Pemberton ........................723-4418: i sues,: -,,10 b OA -b uk* - nin By JAMES SAMUEL For the Courier -Post struction'and operation of a major hazardous waste facility: MOUNT LAUREL The town Harrington said the commission , ship council yesterday filed suit. to has not yet been appointed and that ' block the Trofe Incineration Com-: no regulations have been adopted, ' pang from conducting a trial burn of He said the DEP's refusal to con. hazardous wastes here F;_--.. �� :. sider Trofe's application under that Township solicitor John E.. Har- act may have a negative affect -on rington said he filed the suit . the residents of Mount Laurel Yesterday morning in the Superior' because the Trofe incinerator may Court in Burlington County. be constructed contrary to-regula- The suiteis against the state' tions that may be adopted: Department of Environmental Pro-' The suit' asks that the DEP be tectionP) DE, which must ap blocked from issuing a trial burn ( prove permit until the township is the test burn p ' granted Trofe operates 'a testing and, a Public hearing with full rights to research facility rather than a.r- approve or disapprove the location manent waste, disposal plant and of the facility; that the court declare said he has no plans to establish such the Hazardous Waste Facility Siting a plant. Act applicable to the Trbfe applica> In .December, the Trofe company tion and that the DEP be prevented filed for a Hazardous Waste Facili- from approving the application ties Permit that wouldalloK: it to until such standards are adopted. incinerate hazardous wastes.: ' Harrington said he has been pro - Both residents and the. council mised by DEP officials that they have expressed their o co n cil Mould not grant a test burn permit PPS the plan, but the DEP said a public hearing is not required for they trial until the end of the month. If the DEP moves to issue a permit before burn permit. Harrington said: then, Harrington said he would seek He said the DEP has .said tue,. ,,. an injunction to delay it. township has no role in the decision ' Councilman Ronald A. Graziano. to allow the burning and that said residentsshould beassured that .the agency "has complete and total con-- the township would be able to block 1 trot" over the application ;:,,, the DEP permit%, "We.say No they don't " Hannng :on said : _; At any time, within hours, we can -' be•in court to stop action we believe • "":::=� :+ws.�i!i;�*'r'*`n*.'"'?' :: • :._ _. _ _ - ' '?nd`r The suit says the DEP is consid is going to take place." he said last !ring the applicationwithout tregard . night. 'Graziano o the state's Hazardous, Waste ' said there would be a 'acility Siting Act, which .was special meeting for residents Tues—I dopted last Sept. 10. The act estab-` day night to keep them informed ,_„ :shed a commission to make rules . about Trofe's application. He said .., oncerning location, deli on-' ' Joseph Trofe, owner of the firm, has said he would attend the meeting. i r 1 s' rip Nets..11 6-112 —Pad '""IARY;b�%<+firt'j�iR'vTT?°7,sT49^'!F'r 7�a n."f+-f',1t z'r;;o#.,'5�''T'^'•'.'L'1;e."'.`f,"ra'^'+'�'°°i'v.�+"R'Va+"�r'";' es sw-m moulit aurel I ult ® ®c ®�. e� ur"An ! By CHRIS BIDDLE an injunction was filed after council that its legal rights are protected in course in making sure that the '� Of the BCTStaff learned that the state Department the state's review of Trofe's appli- township's voice is heard. How the �J ; MOUNT LAUREL — Township of Environmental Protection cation. township secures its rights is more r� council filed suit in Superior Court (DEP), which is reviewing Trofe's The suit also challenges DEP's important at this point than wheth- yesterday to to halt state action on a proposal, does not plan to hold a reported claim that it has sole au- er it is opposed to the project or in proposal by Trofe Incineration to public hearing before granting a thority to determine if Trofe should favor of it, he said. make a test burn of toxic wastes. permit for the test burns. be granted the permit. "We can't just jump at it like . At a news conference last night, According to the suit, the DEP Council member Ronald A. Gra- we're trigger happy," Massari solicitor John Harrington, speaking expects to grant the permit Feb. 23. ziano said he decided legal action said. Later he added: "We have to j to about 35 people who had come to Public opposition has been build- was the proper step to take after the travel a little cautious, find the the township building on short no- ing against the proposal ever since DEP refused council's invitation to right avenues, find the right facts. tice, said he had filed a request for a township residents learned about it attend a Feb. 9 information meeting Then we'll move." permanent injunction in Superior late last month. Mount Laurel coun- for residents. In answer to a reporter's ques- Court. cil promised Jan. 25 to investigate "If they (DEP) won't do it the tion, Paul A. Ansaldo said he was t ! Three council members also took how it can use the law to fight the easy way, and come down when we "against the burning of toxic f the opportunity to say that they op- proposal, after being confronted by ask them to, then we'll do it the hard wastes in' Mount Laurel." Andrew t pose outright the burning of any tox- over 150 angry residents. way - with a lawsuit," Graziano R. August and Vicki Elsa said they E i is wastes in their township, the first Council last night said it is seek- said. also were opposed. public statement of its kind. ing court action to ensure that the Mayor Joseph P. Massari said The suit asks the courts to halt Harrington said the request for township's wishes are heard and the suit gives council its only re- (Continued on Page 2, Col. 9) i t T• y� •'� „�:_ Jr J'p"�. .M1 �'-''i 'y,'t'� we' a st�s"^'^.n� _ --i v`.re -v..� , t ♦ �a--� -•'� it74 f`•vs {��.5..t. +;, a essed ports Laurel sueshaltburla (Continued from page 1) �® f bethe state's review of Trofe's appli- ter would govern the b agement Regulations. The g ofhaz- Trofe a permit to burn hazardous Jail, cation until: burning of haz- • An adjudicatory hearing has ar: us wastes. wastes as federal law requires. been held in which the township and viewed undThe er application designed to Harrington said the issues raised kill- its residents are given the right to control the location of hazardous m the suit could be resolved within a nsa- present testimonymonth, if his motion for a summary and call and waste disposal facilities statewide. Act- cross-examine witnesses. Harring- The law, sometimes called 5-1300 Judgement is accepted by the aper ton said such a hearing is permitted its Senate bill number, is known as courts. Meanwhile, mi said he e the under the state Administrative Pro- the Major Hazardous Waste own as seeking a written promise from the tak- cedures Act anytime a case, in ties Siting DEP to halt action on Trofe's appli_ Which public safety is at stake, is sies which is supposed cation until the courts have made a g Act. The state co contested. pposed to put the decision. ;ng •The state has adopted sub- appointedn ew law into effect has not yet been He said that if the DEP refuses chapter 10 now in draft form, °f the p: inted by the governor. to make this promise, he will seek f mi state's new Hazardous Waste Man- Protechoneggency Environmental fer an immediate restraining order from the courts, in addition to the g anted eurrentin}untion. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES March 4, 1982 Mr. David DeRidder Associate Environmental Analyst New York State Department of Environmental Conservation S. U. N. Y., Building ;040, Room 219 Stony Brook, New York 11794 Dear Mr. DeRidder: DAVID HARRIS. M.D.. M.P.H. COMMISSIONER 77 —�--- _ ?_:15 I �• I I y�; �8? Ml - 8 8 f j NAR i TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Re: Southold Town Municipal Solid Waste To Energy Facility Mr. Davids has asked if I would respond to your letter of February 23 regarding the above. Recognizing the experts available within your own department, I find it interesting that you would request this department to comment on the health implication of using treated sewage effluent in the proposed cooling tower. Nevertheless, I appreciate the opportunity to comment; however, before doing so, we would like to take advantage of your kind offer of sendina to us the two volume report from the Environmental Protection Agency entitled, "Effects of Pathogenic and Toxic Materials Transported Via Cooling Device Drift". I do wish you would give further consideration to an alternate, which was suggested in previous correspondence from this department, that is the use of groundwater instead of the sewage effluent.. In this particu- lar case there seem to be sore obvious advantages to do so, one of which would be the elimination of the costly transmission main from the sewage treatment plant to the proposed site. The second is that you would be using groundwater from the plume of the existing landfill. This water, since it is from the plume, has little value in meeting future water supply needs, but its quality would be far more attractive as a coolant than would be the average effluent from a wastewater treatment plant. 223 RABRO DRIVE EAST HAUPPAUGE. N.Y. 1 1788 131 6) 435-2917 LUy. L _. File C Mr. David DeRidder Page 2 March 4, 1902 We look forward to receiving further information. Sincerely yours, Aldo Andreol i , P.E. 17 Deputy Director Division of Environmental Health AA/ j hn cc: Albert Machlin, P.E. H. W. Davids, P.E. Honorable William R. Pell III James Maloney, P.E. I New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Regulatory Affairs Unit Bldg. 40, SUNY --Room 219 Stony Brook, NY 11794 (516) 751-7900 "J February 23, 1982 H. W. Davids, P.E., Director Division of Environmental Health Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Southold Town Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Facility Dear Mr. Davids: FEB 2 51982 rOW� 0r �OU�'Y'CLD As you are aware, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as lead agency has required a Draft EIS for the above project in accordance with SEAR. We appreciate your agency's cooperation in commenting on the EIS and atten- dance at the public hearing held December 16, 1981. Responses to those comments will be included in the Final EIS now being prepared. Subsequent to the public hearing our concern for the project has been narrowed as to whether a health hazard may be created by the proposed use of treated sewage effluent as process water in the cooling tower and incinerator. In a letter to this Department dated January 6, 1982 (copy enclosed) the project sponsor, Energy Development Corporation (EDC), stated that samples from the Greenport STP would be analyzed and appropriate treatment provided. EDC's Engineers letter of January 20, 1982 to Mr. J. Maloney of your Department ex- plained the treatment proposed. Also, for your information EPA has published a two volume report entitled "Effects of Pathogenic and Toxic Materials Transported Via Cooling Device Drift" which we can make available to you if needed. Because of the above we respectfully request your expert advice as to whether or not our concern is valid and if so, is the proposed treatment of effluent sufficient to attenuate any potential health hazard that may be created. Your expeditious response would be appreciated. Thank you for your cooperation with regard to this request. Very truly yours, bavid DeRidder Associate Environmental Analyst H. W. Davids, P.E., Director cc: D. J. Middleton D. J. Larkin A. Machlin P. Roth J. Maloney, P.E., SCDHS Honorable William R. Pell, III, Supervisor, Town of Southold R. Traugott, EDC DD:cz Page Two r �l'.1�� / IZCI�'tIF-t11000.7L� ✓ 12G. .�ili�iste 609-8.JS-J03'0 "IV. Y. S D E C. XF111AfaRYARMRS, REGIO! I January 20, 1982 Mr. Jim Maloney, P.E. Suffolk County Department of Environmental Health Services Division of. Environmental Health 225 Rabro Drive East Hauppauge, Long Island, New York 11787 Re: Use of Greenport Sewer Plant "Secondary" Sidestream at Southold Duar Mr. Maloney: In response to your question, with respect to the details of the method of treatment of the "Secondary Water" which we would anticipate to employ, prior to its use in our proposed municipal solid waste to electricity generating facility at Southold, Long .Island, I submit the following: ...The water, as received, will be chlorinated by feed pump prior to entering a filter press. In this application we can employ levels of chlorination considerably above those allowable for drinking water and will do so to ensure a high kill rate of pathogens. ...The chlorinated water will then pass through the filter press and will enter the 100,000 gallon holding tank. ...From the holding tank the water will then pass to the dissolved solids extraction stage. (The type of which is yet to be selected) ...The water will then pass into the process. . �. .•� -�„�; sem, s -2- January 20, 1982 At present we do not have all the information necessary to design a complete water treatment system, ho%::ever, the above mentioned stages will be an integral tart of the filial system. The boiler feedwater treatment may invlove the use of reverse osmosis subsequent to the above mentioned stages. Yours sincerely, K. W. Hladun Chief Engineer KWH/js cc: A. Marshall Irving Administrative Law Judge New York State Department of Environmental Conservation if Jr1'J 2 a 193,2, Y. S. D. C �Ec�;LA;DRYA FAURS, RFGtQt lcr � L �� l /�'' � �!%'.'%'%.';/�� �Jh9r:�L.rr•'�fT✓< �c%G / /(/iDF�' G �o .�es.e,+�6P� � 9 �T_ ' /%"/ �'; fr;a � •� y /J' YoriO!/; ►/ir�:vS UF; uC.'Yi�G Gve// �rr�✓� Akl /Z c i lt?coA'IF- 0✓1 1,9 616 Uf li,ir r!/j.7'f`l1 TD CG ✓:f�/!:C'/�� fiC/ !� /!/� Uc4r� dN�. c1,-,< c��.r i,i dr[� .•� 1, //�/�<: r''nf r!'.1U/.v /i u•:/� f� fiT,! �e%'/IAiLQ� C'%�Y.liyli/1</�/UC�J �Uy (/Q / ; > /✓C' /"r r / � / ! �Jr'cJ / // Y o/J l W,7"1(-/ f�'•� � � •7Ji rf�'t� cr(Ji�1 q oB sn yup /��• Wi'''t r''r fa ar L�ocvnr /L /' r'� •1 f. ry ; >^l! fl/ (.,�P//� . ! /,/ , � i.i v1c:T �rd✓l ><'4/ fi�/�o Z � �� �/<a i'C" f�_.' Urr� ..;re / ,c7!'r,a, � u'ra U �.��I✓�t;/;oy �/ ���<./:'„i��Ar %Ia✓(' �;c'�7C,/ /JU C�ryu,4TC�.�T" - .� �///;/- /JC%�lJir/I t 1t / P Of�!/ �/!tJ• /�'' L[J.J` Gly<(�/1� 'U {�Gl[�r�t tCe/A, ("0 la'.��% �rr., f r.r� �rnt� f�P c�„��'«% r✓v��� c / C','r-r%%G�// l i�.� /'!✓• _ %��O!%i/✓! E'r jf/o/�!/4' ADv✓ l'/� n Gf/f/�/..,,WOGa��rf�--Di�.-_.!i_'L�H�'U 4!nr/e,f TAGrG�t'oiDc•:_,:/lei/t'tX%/"°j�ArIfIYN 7i� l ljl7� //yr fl<ci f /s; i/:7 f / l�/C liC�7f U12lAYi.S Cl re , c7�fr/rvr4 0,1,1/If /Y%u�c�f7,c4(j � /�! ✓DeGcf-;G` !/%�i!'(7' /J'r v2/cil fi�if e�,lu�� v.n aLsJa^ �arf �F //P %1(w, /; �r�+✓ 07% %.;�t �o:" caf elle fid M6, nftis �u% •/(// J/L'-/ �[',/ � �/•9 [4t [/tom P !/.'7 �' / I/t-� Piy�' ii4i � �. / //lC Pt/�� TAli I` 1 vc�r'Ll Cauf��'dU fraro r .guy e u 710' C [3» tvui 7"4 y"/! 1,6;6 < i1� ye rl cJl-4moi"-f,, xGu�r 44,4-,� L4, A f re --1l WOM 1*1 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001 Mr. William Pell, III Supervisor, Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Pell: November 1, 1983 AM v Henry G. Williams NOV - 7198 ulii � Re: Scavenger Waste Ordinance -_ Village of Greenport/Town of Southold Suffolk County C-36-1120-02 This letter serves as an addendum to the September 6, 1983 comment letter forwarded to you by this office. In order to obtain approval of the above referenced document, the following comment must be addressed in addition to those presented in the September 6th letter: - A provision must be included in the document for requiring the pump -out of on-site systems on a periodic basis, namely every three years as recommended on page 4.4 of the Selected Plan Report of the facility plan. Such provision is necessary for the following reasons: 1. Periodic cleaning of septic tanks and/or cesspools increases the overall life of the on-site system. 2. The design flow for the proposed scavenger waste facility is based on a three year pump -out frequency. Please submit a revised ordinance incorporating all of the comments so approval may be granted. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Andrea Dzierwa or me at 518- 457-4125. / 0-01 Very truly yours, =: —��--- JosepKelleher, P.E. Chief, Pretreatment Section Bureau of Water Quality JFK:AJD:ls CC: Robert Tasker - Town Attorney Bob Knizek - Long Island Project Section Gary E. Loesch - Holzmacher, McLendon, and Murrell John Licata - Region 1, Stony Brook Jack McKeon - Project Administration Section SHELTE`R ISLzAND NEW YORK 11964 cr°y Dorothy S. Ogar: Tan Clerk ere: 7494W October 30, 1979 Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P. C. 560 Broad Hollow Road Melville, New York 11747 h Gentelmen. This is to certify that the following resolution was duly adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Shelter Island onthe 26th day of October, 1979, to wit: "Whereas", the existing Town of Southold/Inc. Village of Greenpdrt Section,201 Study has been amended to include the Town of Shelter Island,<.' and "Whereas" the Town of Shelter Island has engaged Holzmacher, MdWndo and Murrell, P, C. to prepare a Section 201 Wastewater Facility Study and an Infiltration/Inflow Analysis for the Shelter Island Heights Association sanitary collection system, now, Therefore BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of Shelter Island authorizoo the Inc. Village of Greenport to act as the lead applicant (grantee) and designates the payor of the Village of Greenport as the authorized repres- entative- on epreas_entative.on this project. Sincerely, s 7 Dorothy S. Ogar D0/dso Town Clerkio , cc: Town of Southold, V11. of Gi -si Mort • H 2M Corp. HOLZMACHER,McLENDON andMURRELL,P.C. 0 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and dal HHr.,,t N0( i 0A H('a! Mf I Vii .1 NY 11 74. 6big I I �, N fq'A MI I NI I 'ry 11 /� rVlli.i1A, M tl 411 'A I i tN. I( f` NJ �i/F; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233 October 17,` ROBERT G HOLZMACHER P E PF SAMUEL MCLENDON PE NORMAN E MURRELI_ PE HAROLD A DOMBECK P E HUGO D FREUDENTHAL Ph D CARL E BECKER P E FRANK N COPPA P E @HN J MOLLOY, P E Re: Greenport/Southold Shelter Island 201 Study SHIS 79-01 Attention: Mr. Dennis Sullivan, P.E. Gentlemen: As indicated in our letter dated September 14, 1979, we enclose herewith two (2) copies of Amendment No. 2 which amends the on-going Greenport/Southold - Section 201 Waste Water Facilities Study to include the Town of Shelter Island. If there are any questions, please contact our office. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. Garp'E. Loesch, P.E. GEL/pak Enc. cc: Carl Lingard, P.E. NYSDEC, Region I James I. Monsell Supervisor James Homan Supervisor Leonard Bliss AMENDMENT NO. 2 This AMENDMENT to the AGREEMENT made this//A day ofs'e1'02-_ _979, by and between Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. with )ffices at 500 Broad Hollow Road, Melville, New York 11747, here- Lnafter called the "Consultant", the Town Board, Town of Southold end the Board of Trustees, Village of Greenport, a municipal .orporation of the State of New York, hereinafter called the 'Town/Village", and the Town Board, Town of Shelter Island, here- Lnafter called the "Board". W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Consultant has been engaged by the Town/Village :o do a Section 201 Wastewater Facility Study under a grant of :he United States Environmental Protection Agency, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Shelter Island has •equested the Consultant to prepare a separate facility report Ls part of the 201 Facility Plan being developed for the Town/ Fillage in order to meet the requirements,of its State Pollu- tion Discharge Elimination System Permit, and WHEREAS, the Consultant is desirous of assisting the Town >y providing the necessary professional services in connection .herewith, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed that the contract between khe Town/Village and the Consultant is herewith amended as Hollows: 1. The Consultant shall perform an Infiltration/Inflow Analysis for the Shelter Island Heights Association sanitary collection system as described in Exhibit A appended herewith, in accordance with USEPA require- ments. 2. The Consultant shall perform the study and prepare a Section 201 Wastewater Facility Report for the Town Board, Town of Shelter Island as described in Exhibit B appended herewith, in accordance with USEPA require- ments. 3. The Consultant shall perform this work and be remunerated as follows: a. For the Shelter Island Heights Association Infil- tration/Inflow System. Lump Sum of Five Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Dollars and no cents ($5,580.00). EPA Form 5700-41, is attached as Exhibit A. b. For the 201 Wastewater Facility Report, including the nitrogen balance model - Cost plus a Fixed Fee of Seventy-seven Thousand Three Hundred Fifteen Dollars and no cents ($77,315.00). EPA Form 5700-41 is attached as Exhibit B. c. The fees set forth in 3(a) and 3(b) hereof shall not b a charge against ,the Town of Southold or the Village o Greenport. This Amendment shall be subject to the approval of the nited States Environmental Protection Agency before work pro- eeds. All of the terms and conditions of the agreement dated vember 14, 1977 and subsequent amendments shall apply here- th as if written out in full. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto subscribed heir names and affixed their respective seals, the day and year irst written above. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BY:L_ ervisor James Homan VILLAGE OF GREENPORT BY: &.6 a r eorge Hubbard TOWN OF,S ER ISLAND BY Sunervisor Kennard Bliss TATE OF NEW YORK) ) ss.: :OUNTY OF SUFFOLK) • HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. BY: H. A. Dombec Vice President On this%'day ofor-�rrc� 1979, before me personally ame JAMES HOMAN, to me known, and known to me to be the 1upervisor of the TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and he acknowledged to me hat he executed the same as and for the act and deed of said 'own. NOTARY PUBLIC 67 JUDITH T. TERRY Notary Public, State of New York No. 52-0344963 Suffolk Countynj C,Dmmission Expires March 30,19.( ATE OF NEW YORK) ) ss.: UNTY OF SUFFOLK) On this Cp day of 1979, before me personally ame GEORGE HUBBARD, to me known, and known to me to be the yor of the INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT, described in and who ecuted the foregoing instrument, and he acknowledge to me that • ie executed the same as and for the act and deed of said Town. NOTARY PUBLIC. )TATE OF NEW YORK) ) ss.: :OUNTY OF SUFFOLK) On this//�`-/' day ofSP1'7Pni ,bee RORERT E- 11,1ALDE11 1979, before me personally :ame LEONARD BLISS, to me known, and known to me to be the lupervisor of the TOWN OF SHELTER ISLAND, described in and who ,xecuted the foregoing instrument, and he acknowledged to me ;hat he execcted the same as and for the act and deed of said own. NOTARY PUBLI pond W f, OGAR NIUARY PUBLIC, State of Ne„ Yol TATE OF NEW YORK) No, 52.8200218 Qualified in Suffolk County s s . pQmRlisiiati upim mwcb 38k, lft OUNTY OF SUFFOLK) On this lq1�- day of 1979, before me personally ame HAROLD A. DOMBECK, to me known, and known to me to be the ice President of the firm of HOLZMACHER, McLENDON AND MURRELL, .C., described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, nd he acknowledged to me that he executed the same as and for e act Uq C&pd of said f irm . NOTARY PUBLIC, State of Newt York No. 52.4666362 Quae hl i,* S.:f ss County Certiiicste 11131 it Nassau County Cuuur.ission Expires March 30, NOTARY PUBLIC HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. APPENDIX A 5700-41 FOR INFILTRATION/INFLOW ANALYSIS OF SHELTER ISLAND HEIGHTS ASSOCIATION :4 HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. ANIL COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FOR BAGREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA GRARTS Form Approvad (See u-panying instructions before completirlj this forts) OMB No. 158-RO144 PARTI-GENERAL ,.GRANTEE 2. GRANT NUMBER INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT C-36-1120 3. NAME OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR 4. DATE OF PROPOSAL HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. April 30, 1979 $. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR (Inoluds ZIP code) 6. TYPE OF SE14VICE TO BE FURNISHED 500 Broad Hollow Road INFILTRATION/INFLOW Melville, New York 11747 ANALYSI$ - LUMP SUM PART II 7. DIRECT LABOR (Specify labor categories) See labor breakdown Salary Escalationduring period c performance - 5 mos. lag plus - !a mos. o per year =5.8% avg. DIRECT LABOR TOTAL+ B. INDIRECT COSTS (Specify indirect cost pools) Overhead INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL: 9. OTMEk DIRECT COSTS a. TRAVEL (I) TRANSPORTATION 1111 P.q (2) PER DIEM TRAVEL SUBTOTAL: b. EQUIPMENT. MATERIALS, SUPP'._IES (Specify categories) Printing Report (Oak Printing) -W-W31 .l IJIgMAR T IEST�I-Dj . HMAT OURS NRATSYERCIA'TE OST RATE I x BASE 1.851s 1,617 TOTALS QTY COST ESTIMATED COST 50 s 2.65450 Is copies EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL: ; 'x Y,,: 133 ESTIMATED COST ESTIMATED p CONTgACTS COST QTY COST ESTIMATED COST 50 s 2.65450 Is copies EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL: ; 'x Y,,: 133 I ESTIMATED p CONTgACTS COST SUBCONTRACTS SUBTOTAL: s' e d. OTI -.R (Specify categories) ESTIMATED COST OTHER SUBTOTAL: $ v. OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL: ' ',.tom ,: $ 255 j t0. TOTAE' IMA1 ED C')ST ^ s 4.863 „ I- . ; — 12.. 1 , , -k - PRICE 5580. y EPA FGrm 5700.41 (246) PAGE I. OF S A-1 1 r PART 111 -PRICE SUMMARY 13. CotAPI I ITOR'S CATALOG LISTIN65. IN-HOUSE ESTIMATES. PRIOR QUOTES MARKET (indicate beat& for price COmperleon) PRICEISI ART IV - u, u. PROPOSED PRICE 14. CONTRACTON _ I4a. HAS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDERALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY PERiORMED ANY REVIEW OP YOUR ACCOUNTS OR IitCORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT OR CONTRACT WITHIN THB PAST TWELVE MONTHS Q0 1 - ! _J (11 ,Yea-- give name addreee and telephone number of revlewfng office) llCAA, Garden City, New York (51b) 741-80.00 14h THIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLES 40 -CFR -30-700 1 sc. This propo:liil is submitted for use in connection with and in response to (1) Proposal for 20� Waste- water I,ieilities Study and Scavenger W or.. This is to certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that t e cost and pricing data summarized herein are complete, current, and accurate as of 1/30/79 and that a I inancial management capability exists to fully and accu- rately 4ccuunt forthe financials transat tions under this ptoject. I further certify that i uiderstand that the sub,.greement price may be subject to dowriw,,:.t It :I;l:,tiation and/ recon where the above cost and pricll,t; t,atu have been determined, as a rc:,uli at' I, Idil, not to have been mple ,current and accurate as of tt.e date. above. 1111441 (3) 4/30/79 DATE OF EXECUTION SIGN TURF OF PROPOSER Vice President i TITLE OF PROFt".:,ER la. GRANTLE REWIEWER I certity that 1 have reviewed the cost/price summary set forth acceptable f ub• ,t: ment award. GA TF O EXE UTION loyl.PA !•i'.IEWER ('11 uPplicablu) — lin and the proposed cost rice appear SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER Supervisor, Town of Shelter Island TITt E OF REVIEWER 7E Of ! CCUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER ILII, •• tt&vlk V.en _....�... PAGE 2 OF (1.761 • HOL.ZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 1-1 ACTUAL, DIRECT HOURLY SALARY COSTS BY PERSONNEL CATEGORY AS OF APRIL 26, 1979 A-3 DIRECT HOURLY CATEGORY RATE - RANGE Principal Engineer/Scientist $18.50 - 19.00 Project Manager 16.75 - 18.375 Project Engineer/Scientist 11.25 - 13.875 Staff Engineer/Scientist 8.25 - 10.75 Assistant Engineer/Scientist 4.625- 7.375 Technician (Engineering Aide) 4.50 - 4.75 Design Draftsman 10.125 Draftsman 7.625- 8.625 Jr. Draftsman 3.00 - 4.75 Surveyor, Crew Chief 8.75 Surveyor, Instrumentman 5.375 Surveyor, Rodman 3.00 Construction Inspector 8.625 Jr. Construction Inspector 5.375 Senior Chemist 6.75 - 7.875 Chemist/Bacteriologist 5.75 - 6.25 Laboratory Technician 3.50 - 4.875 Librarian 6.00 Technical Typist 5.00 - 5.75 Typist 3.00 - 4.75 Reproduction Personnel 3.125- 5.125 A-3 Project Manager Project Engineer/Scientist Staff Engineer/Scientist Assistant Engineer/Scientist Technician i Design Draftsman Draftsman Jr. Draftsman Technical Typist Typist Reproduction TOTAL LABOR BREAKDOWN - LUMP SUM PORTION SALARY SHELTER ISLAND 201 STUDY $ 74 12.5625 INFILTRATION/INFLOW ANALYSIS 304 SHELTER ISLAND HEIGHTS ASSOCIATION FACILITY FIELD REPORT AGENCY 8.125 MEASUREMENTS PREPARATION REVIEW TOTAL 5.375 2 2 4 4.125 32 4 36 16 16 32 16 12 28 16 16 2 2 16 16 8 8 24 24 4 4 4 12 24 _ 24 52 140 10 202 DIRECT SALARY TOTAL $18.375 $ 74 12.5625 452 9.50 304 6.00 168 4.625 74 10.125 20 8.125 130 3.875 31 5.375 129 3.875 47 4.125 99 $1,528 • • HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. APPENDIX B 5700-41 FOR WASTEWATER FACILITY STUDY !- HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FOR SUBAGREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA GRANTS Form Approved (Ser accompanying instructions before completing this form) OMB No. 158-RO144 PARTI-GENERAL 1. GRANTEE 2. GRANT NUMBER INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT C-36-1120 3. NAME OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR 4. DATE OF PROPOSAL Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. April 30, 1979 5. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR (Include ZIP code) 6. TYPE OF SERVICE TO BE FURNISHED 500 Broad Hollow Road 201 WASTEWATER FACILITY Melville, New York 11747 STUDY (Not including I/I) CPFF 7. DIRECT LABOR (Spe=ity i. "f categories) See Exhibits for Labor Br Salary Escalation - 5 mon plus 24 months performan 9.9% 11 -COST SUMMARY ESTI- HOURLY ESTIMATED MATED HOURS RATE COST ag S TOTALS 19,3 EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL: DIRECT LABOR TOTAL: 8. INDIRECT COSTS (Specify indirect cost pools) RATE x BASE = ESTIMATED COST Overhead 1.85 a 19,339 ,777 Subcontract Administration (Cornell University) $12,100 605 --� �-- INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL: 9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS sxx r i a. TRAVEL ESTIMATED COST (1) TRANSPORTATION 3000 @ 18/mile plus tolls( 20 X$3 . 50)E 610 (2) PER DIEM SUBCONTRACTSSUBTOTAL: $ TRAVEL SUBTOTAL: b. EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (Specify categories) f' 's: QTY $ COST 610 ESTIMATED COST Printing 700 s 2.65 50 s 1,855 S TOTALS 19,3 EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL: c.SUBCONTRACTS:' ESTIMATED COST Cooperative Extension $12,100 u SUBCONTRACTSSUBTOTAL: LLS ESTIMATED d. OTHER (Specify categories) COST' $ g OTHER SUBTOTAL: s.••' ' 5 a:: e OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL: '.� $ 14,565 to. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 28 11. PROFIT Q2 P U,315 12. TOTAL PRICE r• 17A, --•r :744-41 (2-76) 91AaE i OF 5 B-1 . • Form Approved OMB No_ I S8-RO144 _ PART III -PRICE SUMMARY 13. COMPETITORS CATALOG LISTINGS, IN-HOUSE ESTIMATES, PRIOR QUOTES MARKET PROPOSED —(Indicate basis for i:Nce comparison) PRICE(S) PRICE ./ PART IV -CERTIFICATIONS 14. CONTRACTOR 14a. HAS A FEDERAL AGENt ', R A FEDERALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVIEW OF YOUR ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT OR CONTRACT WITHIN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHST [] YES L] NO (If "Yes" give name address and telephone number of reviewing office) DCAA, Garden City, New York (Sl(_)) 741-8000 14b .THIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLES 40 CFR 30-700 14c. This proposal is submitted for use in connection with and in ;response to(i)Proposal for 2 01 Waste - water Fac*]]Li les Study an �1 Scaven er Waste Stu)r �or Town of Shelter IHancl This is to certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the cost and pricing data summarized herein are complete, current, and accurate as of (2)J4/30/79 and that a financial management capability exists to fully and accu- ratelyaccount forthe financial; transactions under this pn,j I I further certify that I understand that the subagreement price may be subject to downward renegotiatioi. and/or recoupment re the above cost and pricing data have been determined, as a result of audit, not to have been com te, c rrent and accurate as of the date above. (3) 4/30/79 DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNAT OF PROPOS" Vice President TITLE OF PROPOS; -R 14. GRANTEE REVIEWER I certify that I have reviewed the cost/price summary set forth rein and the proposedr ear acceptable for ilbagr ement award. / DA E O E ECUTJON -� SIG NA TUR OF REVIEWER Supervisor, Town of Shelter Island TITLE OF REVIEWER 16. EPA REVIEWER (If applicable) DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER TITLE OF REVIEWER EPA �,, t ;7(?F •A] (2.75) B-2 PAGE 2 OF 5 � f • HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. • ACTUAL DIRECT HOURLY SALARY COSTS BY PERSONNEL CATEGORY AS OF APRIL 26, 1979 DIRECT HOURLY CATEGORY RATE - RANGE Principal Engineer/Scientist $18.50 - 19.00 Project Manager 16.75 - 18.375 Project Engineer/Scientist 11.25 - 13.875 Staff Engineer/Scientist 8.25 - 10.75 Assistant Engineer/Scientist 4.625- 7.375 Technician (Engineering Aide) 4.50 - 4.75 Design Draftsman 10.125 Draftsman 7.625- 8.625 Jr. Draftsman 3.00 - 4.75 Surveyor, Crew Chief 8.75 Surveyor, Instrumentman 5.375 Surveyor, Rodman 3.00 Construction Inspector 8.625 Jr. Construction Inspector 5.375 Senior Chemist 6.75 - 7.875 Chemist/Bacteriologist 5.75 - 6.25 Laboratory Technician 3.50 - 4.875 Librarian 6.00 Technical Typist 5.00 - 5.75 Typist 3.00 - 4.75 Reproduction Personnel 3.125- 5.125 HOLZMACHER, bre ca r. Q) 0 0z P4 bA rl r, cd >w+' PC; 0? Q SUMMARY - McLENDON O O A >� 10 Cacc::$ V) EXHIBIT A SHELTER ISLAND & MURRELL, P.C. ,-, w cd > S E N 10 z0 D) � � to U O •r I N O r. 4->m r'Ca w < V) a, 201 STUDY LABOR BY MILESTONES O Cd 0E H P � O a4� Total Hourly a Hours Rate TOTAL Project Manager/Scientist 28 32 44 28 40 172 $18.375 $ 3,161. Project Engineer/Scientist 40 48 72 40 40 240 12.5625 3,015. w Staff Engineer/Scientist 96 52 104 40 4 296 9.50 2,812. Assistant Engineer/Scientist 220 132 200 60 - 612 6.00 3,672. Technician 40 16 60 20 - 136 4.625 629. Design Draftsman 8 8 8 12 4 40 10.125 405. Draftsman 92 28 60 32 4 216 8.125 1,755. Jr. Draftsman 4 4 8 - - 16 3.875 62. Librarian 16 4 8 - - 28 6.00 168. Technical Typist 80 44 80 48 8 260 5.375 1,398. Typist 12 4 8 4 4 32 3.875 124 Reproduction Clerk 24 20 24 24 4 96 4.125 396. TOTALS 660 392 676 308 108 2144 $17,597. LABOR BREAKDOWN 0 N SHELTER ISLAND 201 STUDY v ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEERING DATA REPORT n M USEPA AGENCY NITROGEN 3 GUIDANCE (SEE REVIEW & SIMULATION REPORT z SECTION FIGURE 1) MEETING 2.1 2.2 3.0 4.1 MODEL 4.2 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 PREP. TOTAL o z d Project Manager 4 1 1 1 5 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 - 28 Project C m Engineer/Scientist 4 1 1 2 8 10 2 2 2 2 3 3 - 40 �• Staff Engineer/Scientist - - - 2 44 8 10 10 12 4 2 4 - 96 i N Assistant Fngineer/Scientist - - 3 2 75 8 30 30 40 12 8 12 - 220 0 Technician - - - - 18 8 8 - 4 - 2 - - 40 Design Draftsman - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 8 Draftsman - - - - - - - - - - - - 92 92 Jr. Draftsman - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 4 Librarian - - - - 12 - - - 4 - - - - 16 • Technical Typist - - - - - - - - - - - - 80 80 Typist 2 - - - 4 - 2 1 2 1 - - - 12 Reproduction - - - - - - - - - - - - 24 24 TOTALS 10 2 5 7 166 38 54 45 66 21 17 21 208 660 USEPA GUIDANCE (SEE SECTION FIGURE 1) ALTERNATIVES AGENCY REVIEW & MEETINGS LABOR BREAKDOWN SHELTER ISLAND 201 STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT 1.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1 REPORT PREP. TOTAL 0 r N D = 3 r z 0 0 Z Project Manager 8 1 1 4 18 11 1 - 44 d a C Project m Engineer/Scientist 8 3 8 12 20 20 1 - 72 70 Staff P Engineer/Scientist - 2 12 18 30 40 2 - 104 = N Assistant n Engineer/Scientist - - 16 40 60 80 4 - 200 Technician - - 12 16 20 12 - - 60 Design Draftsman - - - - - - - 8 8 Draftsman - - - - - - - 60 60 Jr. Draftsman - - - - - - - 8 8 Librarian - - - 4 4 - - - 8 • Technical Typist - - - - - - - 80 80 Typist 2 - 1 1 1 1 2 - 8 Reproduction - - - - - - - 24 24 TOTALS 18 6 50 95 153 164 10 180 676 a USEPA GUIDANCE ( SEE SECTION FIGURE 1) AGENCY REVIEW & MEETINGS 1.0 LABOR BREAKDOWN SHELTER ISLAND 201 STUDY SELECTED PLAN REPORT 7.2 7.3 7.4 8.1 8.2 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 10.0 REPORT PREP. TOTAL x 0 r N > a n M z 3 n r z 0 z d CL Project Manager 4 1 5 4 5 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 - 28 C C x Project Engineer/Scientist 4 1 5 4 8 3 4 2 2 2 3 2 - 40 m • 70 Staff P Engineer/Scientist - - 8 4 8 4 8 - - 4 4 - - 40 N Assistant 0 0 Engineer/Scientist - - 20 8 12 4 8 2 - 4 2 - - 60 M Technician - - - 2 2 12 4 - - - - - - 20 Design Draftsman - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 12 Draftsman - - - - - - - - - - - - 32 32 Jr. Draftsman - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Technical Typist - - - - - - - - - - - - 48 48 • Typist 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 4 Reproduction Clerk - - - - - - - - - - - - 24 24 TOTALS 10 2 38 22 35 24 25 6 4 11 10 3 118 308 a USEPA GUIDANCE (SEE SECTION FIGURE 1) Project Manager Project Engineer/Scientist Staff Engineer/Scientist Design Draftsman Draftsman Technical Typist Typist Reproduction Clerk TOTALS REPORT 1 4 6 1 LABOR BREAKDOWN SHELTER ISLAND 201 STUDY PUBLIC INFORMATION ARTICLES SPEECHES MAILINGS 12 4 2 2 1 1 COMMITTEE MEETINGS 7 20 2 2 1 HEARINGS 20 12 4 4 1 1 12 22 32 42 TOTAL 40 40 4 4 4 8 4 4 108 x O r N D n x M M r M z 0 O z d CL C C x x M - r r 0 x N K • w VW HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. APPENDIX C 5700-41 FOR NITROGEN SIMULATION MODEL m COOPERATIVE EXTENSION ASSOCIATION COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FORS GREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA GRA Form Approved (See ruromp.�inying instructions helore Completing this form) OMB No. 138-RO144 PARTI-GENERAL 1. GRANTEE 2. GRANT NUMBER TOWN OF SHELTER ISLAND C-36-1120 3. NAME '.3F CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR 0. DATE OF PROPOSAL Cooperative Extension Association Cornell Univer. May 14, 1979 5. ADDRL::S OF CONTRACTOR LR SUBCONTRACTOR (Include ZIP code) 6. TYPE OF SERVICE TO HE FURNISHED 201 Application of the Cornell/ 246 Griffing Avenue Cooperative Extension Water and Riverhead, New York 11901 Nitrogen Simulation Model. PART II -COST SUMMARY ESTI- HOURLY 7. DIRECT LABOR (Specify labor categories) MATED RATE ESTIMATED COST TOTALS HOURS Principal Investigator s 12.00 s 1,200. Water Resources Specialist " Technical Assist . & Secretary r ( SEE EXHIBIT I FOR MANPOWER BY _f TASK BREAKDOWN DIRECT LABOR TOTAL: �r. s , 400. t E. INDIRECT COSTS (Specify indirect cost pools) RATE x BASE = ESTIMATED COST + $` I INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL ° '� ¢ $ 9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS x fl. TRAVEL ESTIMATED COST I TRANSPORTATION SEE EXHIBIT II 1 224. (2) PER DIEM $ 476. TRAVEL SUBTOTAL: s 1 700. b. EQUI 'MENT, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (Specify categories) QTY COST ( Y g ) ESTIMATED v COST � s Com uter Services 6 hrs 350.00 S 2 100. k' t EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL:' 2,100. �� u c. SUBCONTRACTS ESTIMATED COST KA.t a� YYn" £fit tT � s, SUBCONTRACTSSUBTOTAL: E d. OTHER (Specify cn1r9<i es)fi I I ESTIMATED COST printinit-100 copiea X 150 D,%ges X .031yage f s 450Y�,a' Supplies (SEE EXHIBIT 111) 450 n f OTHER SUBTOTAL:$ "0 90 , e.' OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL: 3~" $ 4,700 10. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST s 12 100 11. PROFIT $ — 12. TOTAL PRICE 12 1100 PA Form 5700-41 (2.76) PAGE 1 OF 5 Form Approved OMB No ISS-RO144 PART III -PRICE SUMMARIW 19. COMPETITOR'S CATALOG LISTINGS, IN-HOUSE ESTIMATES. PRIOR QUOTES MARKET PROPOSED (lnd"ara basis lot pt,ce comparison) PRICE(S) PRICE f -it PART IV -CERTIFICATIONS 14. CONTRACTOR 14a. HAS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDERALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVIEW OF YOUR ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT OR CONTRACT WITHIN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHSI �] VES CM NO (11 "Yea" give name address and telephone number of reviewing olllce) 14b.THIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRIN%,IPLES ..� 40 -CFR -30-700 14C. This proposal is submitted for use in connection with and in response to (1)_. RFP, HM&M , 12/15/78 Nitrogen Modeling This is to certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the cost and pricing data summarized herein are complete, current, and accurate as of (2)j 12/30/78 and that a financial management capability exists to Cully and accu- rately account for the financials transactions under this project. I further certify that I understand that the subagreement price may be subject to downward renegotiation and/or recoupment where the above cost and pricing data have been determined, as a result of audit, not to have been complete, current and accurate as of the date above. .—PATE OF XF XECUTION SIGNATURE OF PROPOSER Coordinator, Water Resource Program Cornell University TITLE OF PROPOSr i 14. GRANTEE REVIEWER I certify that I have reviewed the cost/price summary set forth herein andropo d costs/price appear acceptable for Buba reement award. P g 7 79 ,2 O� TE F ECUT-014 SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER Vice President _ TITLE OF REVIEWER 16. EPA REVIEWER (11.appllcoble) DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER TITLE OF REVIEWER EPA Form 5700-41 (2-76) PAGE Z OF S , EXHIBIT I MANPOWER BY TASK BREAKDOWN * The number of spatial units required will be determined upon evaluation of existing data. The number of units chosen will not increase or decrease the effort shown. ** Similarly the number of simulations required will not appreciably increase or decrease the effort shown. W o a H E- a v) Cf) a E4 ►-+ <4z a �H H zw woU " a "P E-1Cow U0] U TASK ,,,_, 3P4c HW 4zw 1. Adapt & Document Model 0 114 16 2. Collate basic data on existing conditions* 0 279 96 3. Simulate existing conditions** 0 92 48 4. Evaluate planning alternatives 0 120 40 5. Meetings & Administrative 100 80 40 TOTAL (TASKS 1-5) 100 685 240 * The number of spatial units required will be determined upon evaluation of existing data. The number of units chosen will not increase or decrease the effort shown. ** Similarly the number of simulations required will not appreciably increase or decrease the effort shown. • EXITIBIT II TRANSPORTATION Air Fare 5 trips X $102/trip Parking 5 trips X 3 days X $5/day Mileage 3600 miles X $.17/mile Tolls 18 crossings X $1.50/crossing PER DIEM: Subsistence 16 days X $29.75/day TOTAL $ 510.00 75.00 612.00 27.00 476.00 $1,700.00 EXHIBIT III SUPPLIES Telephone $100.00 Photo Supplies 50.00 Blueprint Copies 50.00 Graphic Supplies 40.00 Paper Supplies 73.50 Miscellaneous Office Supplies 136.50 TOTAL $450.00 A SUMMARY OF WORK PROGRAM I. Adapt and Uocic��rnL IQud�_1 This task involves adapting; the mathematical model and computer for simulating soil nitrogen and water budgets to correspond to the particular characteristics of Shelter Island such as special farm or lawn management retimes different from those simulated previously in work during the Nassau -Suffolk 208 study. Short descriptions of the revised model will be written. II. Collate Basic Data on Existing Conditions Land use, soil, climate, sewerage network, and runoff pattern information will be obtained and digitized to represent each cell defined by dividing the study area into homogeneous units. The cell system will be designed in consultation with local and regional agencies. Other data such as unit wastewater flows, animal populations, and quantitative turf maintenance practices will be collated. III. Simulate Existing Conditions The mathematical model of Task I will be used to predict the amounts of water recharged and the levels of inorganic nitrogen in that water for the year during which the basic land use data was collected. The simulated values will be compared to measured nitrate levels in shallow wells for a recent year or years. A report assessing the relative contributions by various nitrogen sources to the totals will be prepared. IV. Evaluate Planning Alternatives One projected land use pattern for some design year will be simulated with each of several sewerage options in order to estimate the relative impact of each sewerage option. (The projected land use pattern will be digitized using the same cell system used in Task II.) A report discussing the results will be prepared. V. Meetings and Administrative Periodic progress reports will be submitted and consultative meetings with FPk and other agencies as appropriate will be held throughout the project. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF f TOWN _rCLERK TOWN OF, SOUTHOLO SUFFOLK. COUNTY Southold, L. I., N. Y. 11971 September 27, 1979 Gary E. Loesch, P.E. Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. 560 Broad Hollow Road Melville, New York 11747 Dear Mr. Loesch: Transmitted herewith are nine (9) executed copies of Amendment No. 2 - Greenport/Southold/Shelter Island 201 Study. Please note addition of Item c. on page 2 which reads as follows: C. The fees set forth in 3(a) and 3(b) hereof shall not be a charge against the Town of Southold or the Village of Greenport." Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Enclosures (9) TELEPHONE (516) 765-1.801 0 . H 2M Corp. HOLZMACHER,McLENDON and MURRELL,P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS 500 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD, MELVILLE NY 11747 (516) 6945040 ❑ 560 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD MELVLA IF NY 11'4 ° 375 FULTON STREFI, FAHMINGDAL[-. NY 11 ;1(; t 5 IOIi 40 W MAIN STREET. RIVERHEAb N) 11b(il ,4d0 L7 40 PARK PLACE. Nt"TON, NJ 0,'860 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233 September 14, 1 R08ERT G. HOLZMACHER, P.E., P.P., L.S. SAMUEL C. McLENDON, P.E. NORMAN E. MURRELL, P.E. HAROLD A. DOMBECK, P.E. HUGO D. FREUOENTHAL, PA. D. CARL E. BECKER, P.E. FRANK N. COPPA, P.E. JOHN J. MOLLOY. P.E. DONALD A. SKISS, P.E. CHARLES E. BANKS. P.E. ANTHONY SIMS, L.S. JAMES B. KELLEY, P.E. GARY E. LOESCH, P.E. BRIJ M. SHRIVASTAVA. P.E. SEP 1 7 1979 ° TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Re: Greenport -Southold/ Town of Shelter Island 201 Study GRSO 79--01 SHIS 79.-01 Attention: Mr. Dennis B. Sullivan, P.E. Gentlemen: We enclose herewith two (2) copies each of the following documents: a. USEPA Form 5700-32 (pages 1, 8 & 10 of 16). b. NYSDEC Form 92-15-9 Revised Project Cost Estimate. c. Correspondence from New York State Planning and Development Clearinghouse dated June 14, 1979. d. Correspondence from Long island Regional Planning Board dated May 11 and June 7, 1979 and HM&M correspondence dated June 13, 1979. �©e Cash Flow Schedule. ENG Amendment No. 1 to perform the scavenger waste study (executed by Mayor Hubbard). g. Amendment No. 2 to include the Town of Shelter Island in the ongoing Greenport/Southold 201 Study. (Executed copy to be forwarded as soon as possible.) HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 0 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation -2- September 14, 1979 Your early review of the enclosed will be appreciated. Should you have any questions, please contact our office. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. 4•� Gar -7E. Loesch, P.E. GEL/pak Enc. cc: Carl Lingard, P.E. NYSDEC, Region I Mayor Hubbard Supervisor Homan ✓ Supervisor Bliss ,5)01- In Reply Refer To C-36-1120 Villarse of Greenport Suffolk County. New, York Mr. Joseph L. Townsend, Jr.. Mayor Village of C-reenport 236 Third Street nreenmrt, New York 11944 Dear Mayor Townsend TOWN OF 5QU];h,)LU This letter is to confir'n, conversations between Mr. Gary Loesch. P.E., of H214, Corporation and Mr. Carl C. Lingard, P.E., of this office,. regard- ino the proposed Scavenger Waste Study of the above referenced project. The changes resulting from the correspondence between the New, York -. Sta4e Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) (May 21, 10,79) and 42M (day 31, 1979) are acceptable to this office. Please be informed, however, that the cost of $2,035 shown on EPA Form 5700-41, for a Laboratory Analysis of Septage is to be deleted since Scavenger Waste characteristics may be obtained from the Riverhead Scavenger Waste Report. If, however, there is a specific reason for performing the analysis, a Justification is to be submitted. Please be inforaed that the following documents are to be submitted for final approval of the contract amendment: 1. A revised EPA Form 6700-41. 11'� Q. A revised breakdown of costs (Exhibit B). 3. A revised Ennineering Agreement hvnrJn*nt No. 1. Please contact Mr. t-lilliam F. Esnivnd, of NYSDEC at (518) 467-2570 for information regarding the submission of a request for a *rant increase. Should you have any questions on the above, please contact Mr. Carl C. Lingar-d, P.E., at (212) 264-0217 or 0218. Sincerely yours, George G. McCann, Acting Chief Metropolitan Section New York Water Programs Branch cc: Mr. William F. Esmond, P.E., Acting Assistant Director for Facilities Planning Division of Water cc: Mr. Gary Loesch, H2M Corp. cc: Mr. Albert Martocchia, Supervisor Town of Southhold cc: Mr. James Monsell, Village of Greenport GREENPORT-SOUTHOLD/SHELTER ISLAND CASH FLOW SCHEDULE APPROVAL 95,449 82,895 22,792 201,136 150,852 20,724 * New York State will pay half the local share upon entering Step 3. **Assumes approval by USEPA and NYSDEC of the Shelter Island 201 Study (B) and the Greenport -Southold Scavenger Waste Study (C) during the month of September, 1979. 22,401 7,159 0 TOTAL CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE COST SHARING SCHEDULE A B C D SHELTER* SOUTHOLD* GREENPORT/ USEPA ISLAND (25% OF C GREENPORT* DATE** ON-GOING SOUTHOLD (75% OF D) (25% OF B) +25% OF .7A)( 25% OF .3A) (MONTHS FROM GREENPORT SHELTER SCAVENGER LESS LESS LESS LESS RETAINAGE AUTHORIZATION) SOUTHOLD 201 ISLAND 201 WASTE STUDY TOTAL RETAINAGE RETAINAGE RETAINAGE RETAINAGE (5% of D_) 0 $59,656 $ 0 $ 0. $ 59,656 $ 42,505 $ 0 $ 9,918 $ 4,250 $ 2,983 1 63,633 5,865 2,849 72,347 51,547 1,393 11,255 4,534 3,618 2 67,610 10,144 5,698 83,452 59,459 2,409 12,594 4,817 4,173 3 71,587 15,890 8,547 96,024 68,417 3,774 13,931 5,101 4,801 4 75,564 21,636 11,396 108,596 77,374 5,139 15,269 5,384 5,430 5 79,541 27,383 14,245 121,169 86,333 6,504 16,607 5,667 6,058 6 83,518 33,129 17,094 133,741 95,290 7,868 17,945 5,951 6,687 7 87,495 37,760 19,943 145,198 103,453 8,968 19,283 6,234 7,260 8 91,472 42,390 22,792 156,654 111,616 10,068 20,620 6,517 7,833 9 95,449 47,021 165,262 117,750 11,167 21,281 6,801 8,263 10 51,651 169,892 121,048 12,267 A L 8,495 11 54,844 173,085•. 123,323 13,025 8,655 12 58,037 176,278 125,598 13,784 8,814 13 61,230 179,471 127,873 14,543 8,973 14 64,422 182,663 130,147 15,301 9,133 15 67,615 185,856 132,422 16,059 9,293 16 73,510 191,751 136,623 17,459 9,587 17 75,387 193,628 137,960 17,905 9,681 18 77,264 195,505 139,298 18,350 9,775 19 79,141 197,382 140,635 18,796 9,869 20 81,018 199,259 141,972 19,242 9,963 21 95,449 82,895 22,792 201,136 143,309 19,688 21,281 6,801 10,057 APPROVAL 95,449 82,895 22,792 201,136 150,852 20,724 * New York State will pay half the local share upon entering Step 3. **Assumes approval by USEPA and NYSDEC of the Shelter Island 201 Study (B) and the Greenport -Southold Scavenger Waste Study (C) during the month of September, 1979. 22,401 7,159 0 AMENDMENT NO. 1 This AMENDMENT to the AGREEMENT Ode this day of 1979, by and between HOLZMACHER, McLENDON AND MURRELL, P.C., with offices at 500 Broad Hollow Road, Melville, New York 11747, hereinafter called the "Consultant" and the Town Board, Town of Southold and the Board of Trustees, Village of Green- port, a municipal corporation of the State of New York, here- inafter called the "Town/Village". W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Consultant has been engaged by the Town/ Village to do a Section 201 Wastewater Facility Study under a grant of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold has requested the Consultant to prepare a combined facility report incorporating Scavenger Wastes and Septic Tank Managment as part of the Facility Plan being developed for the Town/Village in order to meet the requirements of its State Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit, and WHEREAS, the Consultant is desirous of assisting the Town by providing the necessary professional services in connection therewith, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed that the contract by and between the Town/Village and the Consultant is herewith ame-ided as follows: 1. The Consultant shall perform the study and prepare a facility report dealing with Scavenger Wastes and Septic Tank Managment in the Town of Southold, as described in Exhibit "A" appended herewith, in accordance with USEPA requirements. 2. The Consultant shall be remunerated at cost, plus a fixe fee of Two Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy' -three and 00/00 ($2,973.00) Dollars as shown on EPA Form 5700 attached. 3. Payment will be made through the Town/Village with the Town of Southold obligated to pay the entire local share of the services described herein. I 4. This amendment shall be subject to the approval of the United States Environmental Protection Agency before work proceeds. 5. All of the terms and conditions of the agreement dated November 14, 1977 shall apply herewith as if written out in full. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto sub- scribed their names and affixed their respective seals, the day and year first written above. {(SEAL) (SEAL) 11 (SEAL) FOR THE TOWN BOARD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD i James Homan, Supervisor FOR THE VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT Geor Hubbard, Mayor CONSULTANT: HOLZMACHER, McLENDON AND MURRELL, P.C. -2- amuel C. McLendon, P.E , Exec. V.P. STATE OF NEW YORK) f ) ss.: jI COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) I On thiso{,��'day of ��C��- � 1979, before me personally came JAMES HOMAN, to me known, and known to me to be the Supervisor of the TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and he acknowledged to me that he exe- cuted the same as and for the act and deed of said Town. NOTARY cPUBLIC JUDITH T. TERRY Notary Public, state of New York No. 52-0344963 Suffolk County STATE OF NEW YORK) Commission Expires March 30, 1 ss. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) On this 0 day of 'V -S '- ber' 1979, before me personally came GEORGE HUBBARD, to me known, and known to me to be the Mayer of the INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT, described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and he acknowledged to me that he executed the same as and for the act and deed of said Town. TARY P LIC JOHN P. scnoTT NotaryPiti-;lic, State of Nee, York Qualified in Suffolk County 5-'-4513572 STATE OF NEW YORK) Commiesiort -pire n 03;3 f/ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) On this�x� cd -ay of 1979, before me personally came SAMUEL C. McLENDON, to me known, and known to me to be the Execu- tive Vice President of the firm of HOLZMACHER, McLENDON AND -3- • MURRELL, P.C., described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and he acknowledged to me that he executed the same as and for the act and deed of said firm. VIRGINIA M. M£LLGREN NOTARY PUBLIC 1017 Notary Public, State of rjew Yark No. 52-7890350 Suffolk Courtly Certificate Filed in Nassau County Term Expires March 30, 19p -4- EXHIBIT A COST OR PRICE SUM1` -\RY FORMAT FOR SUBAGREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA GRANTS Form Approved (J(,• ,,, , , n.I> tnyinh if),trlwIioNs before c.omplotiij; this form) OMB No. 158-801.13 PARTI-GENERAL 1. GRANTEE 2. GRANT NUMBER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD/INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT C-36-1120 9. NAME OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR 4. DATE OF PROPOSAL Amended HOLZMACHER, MCI,ENDON & MURRELL, P.C. 12/4/78 7/30/79 5. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR OR ;uBCONTRACTOR (Include ZIP code) 6. TYPE OF SERVICE TO BE FURNISHED 500 Broad Hollow Road Engineering Report and Melville, New York 11747 Study on Scavenger Waste in Southold 516-752-9060 ' PART 11 -COST SUMMARY ESTI- HOURLY ESTIMATED 7. DIRECT LABOR (Specify lobo, cater•xios) MATED TOTALS HOURS RATE COST See Attached Exhibit. B $ $ 6,612 U. —?� F 9 9 r i DIRECT LABOR TOTAL: 6,612.00 8. 1ND:RcCT COSTS (Spec.ty indirect cost pools)I RATE l x BASE _ ESTIMATED 1 COST INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL: 9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS ESTIMATED a. TRAVEL ^ COST R `1 I) TRANSPO TATION 000 X .20800. (2) PER [IIEM $ TRAVEL SUBTOTAL: $ 800, b. EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (Specify Categories) QTY COST ESTIMATED COLT Printing nsty Print $ 2. 5 0S EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL: b. : 175. c. S'_�aCC.NTRACTS ESTIMATED COST NONE' SUBCONTRACTSSUBTOTAL: L $ ESTIMATED (I. C I HR (Specify c.t.jjorias) COST 1 OTHER SUI $ e.' OTHER DI. ECT COSTS to. TO -AL CSTIMATED COST I1. P ejF1, Fixed Fee 1570 12- TOTAL+RICE PA Form 5)1,0-41 (2-76) PAGE t OF 5 .. PART 111. -PRICE. SUMMA .''MPcTIIOA's CATALOG �..,z'flNv'S, IN-i,%rvSE EST,MATES, PRIOR QUOTES .AARKL7 i Y`,v?OSED (indicate basis for price comparison) PRICE(S) NAICE PART IV . CERTIFICATIONS 14. CONTRACTOR _ 14a. HAS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDERALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVIEW OF YOUR ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT OR CONTRACT WITHIN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS ® YES C3 NO (1f "Yes" give name address and telephone number of reviewing office) DCAA, Garden City, New York (516) 741-8000 14b.THIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLES 40 CFR 30-700 4c. This proposal is submitted for use in connection with and in response to (1)Proposal for Engineering Report and Study on fM'tT'C%"",mr Waste in Smithn1d This is to certify to the best of my knowledge and be ie that the cost and pricing data summarized herein are complete, current, and accurate as of (2) 30 /I 7 7 and that a financial management capability exists to fully and accu- rately account or the financials transactions under this project. 1 further certify that 11 understand that the subagreement price may be subject to downward renegotiation and/or recoupment where the above cost and pricing data have been determined, as a result of audit, not to have been c urrent and accurate as of the date above. (3) / 1 OAT OF "..4, EXECUTION SIGNAT E OF PROPOSER Vice President, TITLE OF PROPOSER 14. GRANTEE REVIEWER I certify that 1 have reviewed the cost/price summary set forth herej'n and the proposed costs/price appear acceptable for snbagreement award. DATE OF EXECUTION 16. EPA REVIEWER (If applicable) DATE OF EXECUTION :1:.NA IURE OF Ni VIEWER ! Supervisor, Town of Southold TITLE OF REVIEWER _---__SIVNAIURE OF REVIEWER TILE OF REVIEWER EPA Form 5700-41 (2-76) PAGE 2 0 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. T�'vuTUTm n DESCRIPTION OF TASKS ENGINEERING REPORT AND STUDY ON SCAVENGER WASTES IN SOUTHOLD TASK 1 f DECEMBER, 1978 REVISED: MAY, 1979 Under Task 1, the following will be performed: A. Scope of work and introduction will be presented. B. Background information and previous studies will be given. C. Recommendations and conclusions will be made. D. Patterned interviews will be performed with scavenger waste firms who service the project area. TASK 2 Under Task 2, future scavenger waste volumes will be developed. Future volumes will be based on existing waste volumes developed under Task 3 and historical volume relationships from other Towns in Suffolk County. TASK 3 Under Task 3, an inventory of the existing scavenger waste disposal sites in the project area and a literature search to determine scavenger waste characteristics will be developed. Additionally, an estimate of the present quantity and type of scavenger wastes delivered to each site per day, per week, etc., will be made. TASK 4 The existing practice of discharging scavenger wastes at the Town of Southold landfill versus discharging these wastes at the Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant are to be evaluated based on environmental criteria under the Plan of Study and proposal. Under Task 5, the objective is to increase the scope to perform an environmental assessment of each of the most viable alternatives dealing exclusively with the HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. -2- collection, treatment and disposal of scavenger wastes. The environmental assessment will include the following: A. Groundwater quality of disposal site(s) other than the existing scavenger waste disposal site. (As indicated, existing site to be evaluated under present study.) B. Soil characteristics of disposal site(s) other than the existing scavenger waste disposal site. (As indicated, existing site to be evaluated under present study.) C. Environmental impact of the proposed action. D. Adverse impacts, if any, which cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented. E. Irreversible commitments of resources. F. Alternative to the proposed plan of action. G. Relationship between local short-term uses of the environment, and the maintenance of long-term productivity. TASK 5 The plan of study and proposal indicates an investigation of various alternatives for scavenger waste receiving facilities and handling would be included in the on-going 201 Facility Plan. The intent of that statement was to evaluate the continued discharge of scavenger wastes at the Town of Southold Landfill vs. discharge at the Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant. The level of effort did not include an evaluation of the concept of septic tank management. Under Task 5 numerous alternatives with regard to scavenger waste collection,treatment and disposal will be examined, including the concept of septic tank management. Existing operating plants will be inspected and inventoried. A dis- cussion on phased construction, as applicable, will be made. Design criteria and regulatory agency requirements will be presented and utilized - especially review of the State's latest solid waste management requirements for disposal sites (landfill site(s)). The selection of alternatives will be made from an implementation, cost and environmental point of view. We presently believe implementation of a septic tank management plan is a cost effective and viable alterna- tive to sewering in the less populated areas. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. TASK 6 Under Task 6 a cost analysis of alternatives will be made. A present worth and annual cost approach will be utilized for the comparison of costs. A discussion of funding and the cost for the various alternatives to the Towns and homeowners will be presented. TASK 7 Under Task 7 the septic tank management concept will be discussed. Possible ordinance(s) establishing rates and charges for sewage disposal and service, and providing pro- cedures for its enforcement will be presented. Feasibility of such an ordinance will be discussed for the project area. TASK 8 Under Task 8 an inventory and summary of septic tank and/or cesspool failures will be presented. The various regulatory agencies and Health Department will be contacted to obtain this information. Further, an industrial survey to deter- mine quantity and quality of scavenger wastes emanating from existing industries and marina pump -out facilities in project area will be performed. TASK 9 Task 9 will be comprised of meetings held with the Towns, Workshops with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, United States Environmental Protection Agency and Suffolk County Department of Health Services. EXHIBIT B ENGINEERING REPORT AND STUDY ON SCAVENGER WASTE IN TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MANHOURS VS. TASK x x x x x x x x x HOURLY �� <N eco CO�, UD <co <t- <00 <M TOTAL RATE - 1 - 99 6.31 625 2 - - - JUNIOR DRAFTSMAN 1 - F4 F EO Fy Ei E-( E-4 E- E-4 HOURS *1 TOTAL PROJECT MANAGER 1 1 3 6 4 1 1 1 24 42 $18.49 $ 777 PROJECT ENGINEER/SCIENTIST 5 STAFF ENGINEER/SCIENTIST 15 ASSISTANT ENGINEER/SCIENTIST 1 TECHNICIAN 2 10 30 30 20 6 2 24 129 13.26 1,711 6 11 60 60 30 - 24 - 206 10.52 2,167 2 2 45 30 18 - 1 - 99 6.31 625 (ENGINEERING AIDE) 1 - 5 8 32 6 - 1 - DESIGN DRAFTSMAN 1 1 10 8 1 1 1 - 1 DRAFTSMAN 1 1 1 16 16 2 - - - JUNIOR DRAFTSMAN 1 - 1 8 10 - 1 1 - TECHNICAL TYPIST 1 1 2 12 16 4 1 - - TYPIST 1 - 3 8 10 2 1 1 3 REPRODUCTION 3 1 4 12 6 1 1 1 - TOTAL HOURS 31 15 43 213 224 85 12 33 51 *1 See Exhibit C - Direct Hourly Salary Costs; Assumes 6 month performance and 8% salary escalation annually. 53 4.72 250 24 10.33 248 37 8.29 307 22 3.95 87 37 5.55 205 29 3.95 115 29 4.14 120 707 $6,612 N � D n 2 m � r m z 0 0 z CL 3 C M r r v N � 0 0 M M I 0 I - HOLLMACHEH, MLLENDON and MUHHELL, P C , H2M CORP I;YIIIpI C ACTI]AL DIRECT 110URLY SALARY COSTS Hy PERSONNEL CATEGORY AS OF JULY 13, 1979 DIRECT IiOURLY CATEGORY RATE - RANGE Principal $19.625 - 20.125 Project Lanager 16.75 - 19.50 Project Eligineer/SCientist 12.125 - 13.87!i Staff Engineer/Scientist 8.75 - 11.875 Assistant Engineer/Scientist 5.00 - 7.375 Technician (Engineering Aid) 4.50 - 4.75 Design Draftsman 10.125 Draftsman 7.625 - 8.625 Jr. Draftsman 3.00 - 4.75 Surveyor, Crew Chief 8.75 Surveyor, Instrumentman 5.375 Surveyor, Rodman 3.125 Sr. Construction Inspector 8.625 Construction Inspector 5.375 Senior Chemist 7.25 - 8.375 Chemist/Bacteriologist 5.375 - 6.25 Laboratory Technician 3.25 - 4.75 Librarian 6.00 Technical Typist. 5.125 - 5.75 Typist 3.00 - 4.75 Reproduction Personnel 3.00 - 5.125 August 7, 1979 Supervisor James Homan Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Road Southold, New York 11791 r,r i� u sa TOWN F SOu'r 4 Re: Greenport/Southold 201 Study GRSO 78-01 Dear Supervisor Homan: We have been advised by New York State Department of Environ- mental Conservation that the proposed scavenger waste study for the Town of Southold can be performed as part of the 2nd document entitled "Alternatives and Engineering Assessment" as opposed to being submitted as a separate document. In addition, the labora- tory analyses have been deleted from the study and we will utilize the laboratory results obtained in the Riverhead -Southampton Study. Consequently, we have reduced the level of effort from $31,172.00 to $22,792.00. This results in a cost of $5,698.00 to the Town, (25%), half of which will be paid by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation at Step 3. Kindly execute all three copies of EPA Form 5700-41 and return two (2) copies to our office. Should any questions arise, please contact me at your convenience. GEL/pak Enc. cc: Carl Lingard, P.E. Robert G. Knizek, P.E. John Licata, P.E. Mayor George Hubbard Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. Gar. Loesch, P.E. Rig. Date'—.-`�i�-'� `--_"._------- ROBERT G. HOLZMACHER P.E, P P., L. S. SAMUEL C McLENDON. P.E. NORMAN E.MURRELL,P.E . H 2M Corp.AROLD p • A. DOMBECK, P.E. HUGO D FREUDENTHAL Ph D. HtLLZMACHER,McLENDONandMURRELL,P.C. ' BECKER,PE FRANK RANK FN COPPA P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS JOHN) MOLLOY,PE DONALD A. SIOSS, P E CHARLES E. BANKS. P E000*1 . ANTHONY SIMONE, L S. JAMES B KELLEY, P.E. GARY E LOESCH RE y BRIJ M. SHRIVASTAVA, P E August 7, 1979 Supervisor James Homan Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Road Southold, New York 11791 r,r i� u sa TOWN F SOu'r 4 Re: Greenport/Southold 201 Study GRSO 78-01 Dear Supervisor Homan: We have been advised by New York State Department of Environ- mental Conservation that the proposed scavenger waste study for the Town of Southold can be performed as part of the 2nd document entitled "Alternatives and Engineering Assessment" as opposed to being submitted as a separate document. In addition, the labora- tory analyses have been deleted from the study and we will utilize the laboratory results obtained in the Riverhead -Southampton Study. Consequently, we have reduced the level of effort from $31,172.00 to $22,792.00. This results in a cost of $5,698.00 to the Town, (25%), half of which will be paid by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation at Step 3. Kindly execute all three copies of EPA Form 5700-41 and return two (2) copies to our office. Should any questions arise, please contact me at your convenience. GEL/pak Enc. cc: Carl Lingard, P.E. Robert G. Knizek, P.E. John Licata, P.E. Mayor George Hubbard Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. Gar. Loesch, P.E. Rig. Date'—.-`�i�-'� `--_"._------- COST -OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FOR SUBA EEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA GRANTS orm Approved (Stir: accompanying instructions before completing this form) OMB No. 158-RO144 PART[ -GENERAL 1. GRANTEE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD/INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT 2. GRANT NUMBER C-36-1120 9. NAME OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR 4. DATE OF PROPOSAL Amended HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. 12/4/78 7/30/79 5. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR (Include ZIP code) 6. TYPE OF SERVICE TO BE FURNISHED 500 Broad Hollow Road Engineering Report and Melville, New York 11747 Study on Scavenger Waste in Southold 516-752-9060 PART 11 -COST SUMMARY 7. DIRECT L ESTI- HOURLY ESTIMATED ABOR (Spaclfy labor categories) MATED TOTALS HOURS RATE COST ee Attached Exhibi $ i 2. DIRECT LABOR TOTAL: wammosommarm. 8. INDIRECT COSTS (Spec;fy indirect cost pool@) RATE I x BASE = I ESTIMATED COST ' INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL:> ' 9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS 8. TRAVEL v 1) TRANSPORTATION 4000 X .20 (2) PER DIEM TRAVEL SUBTOTAL: b. EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (Specify categories) QTY COST Printing ns y Prin s EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL: C C. SL;9CONTRACTS ESTIMATED COST � 8�00• 0 ESTIMATED COST —175_ ESTIMATED COST SUBCONTRACTSSUBTOTAL ' Qy5 4$ d. C I- ER (Specify categories) ESTIMATED COST OTHER SUBTOTAL: S _ e.' OTHER DIi�ECT COSTS TOTAL z; r >, F ,. Io. TU `AL ESTIMATED COST - I1. P -t JF1' Fixed Fee 15 12. TOTAL RICE G PA Form 5100-41 (2.76) PAGE I OF 5 1 3. PART III -PRICE SUMMARY ----j—� PR T OPQSEO COMPETITOR'S LOG LISTINGS, IN-HOUSE ESTIMATES, PRIOR.TES - MARKET PRICE Indicate basis for price comparison) __L_ PART IV -CERTIFICATIONS s 14. CONTRACTOR 14s. HAS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDERALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVIEW T HIN THE PAST TWEELVLV ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT OR CONTRACT WIT E MONTHS (] YES r-1 No (If "Yee" give name address and telephone number of reviewing office) DCAA, Garden City, New York (516) 741-8000 14b.THIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLES 40 CFR 30-700 4c. Proposal for Engineering! This proposal is submitted for use in connection with and in response to (1) Report and Study on .This is to certify to the best of my knowledge and belie that the cost and pricing data summarized herein are complete, current, and accurate as of (2�/ Q 7� and that a financial management capability exists to fully and accu- atelyfinancial) transactions under this project. I further certify that 1 understand that the raccount orthe atelycement price may be subject to downward renegotiation and/or recoupment where the above cost and n determined, as a result of audit, not to have been co , urrent and accurate as pricing data have bee of the date above. (3) I a1GNAT E OF PROPOSER OAT OF EXECUTION Vice President TITLE OF PROPOSER 14. GRANTEE REVIEWER 1 certify that I have reviewed the cost/price summary set fortl)'he'ein and the proposed costs/price appear acceptable for subagYeement award. GATE OF EXECUTION r SIGNATURE OF F4, -VIEWER supervisor, Town of Southold TITLE OF REVIEWER 16. EPA REVIEWER (If appNeab/e) _. DATE OF EXECUTION S,GNATURE OF REVIEWER T11 LE OF REVIEWER PAGE 2 Or- EPA FEPA Form 5700-41 (2-76) HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ACTUAL DIRECT HOURLY SALARY COSTS BY PERSONNEL CATEGORY AS OF JULY 13, 1970 CATEGORY Principal EngineEr/Scientist Project Manager Project Engineer/Scientist Staff Engineer/Scientist Assistant Engineer/Scientist Technician (Engineering Aid) Design Draftsman Draftsman Jr. Draftsman a Surveyor, Crew Chief Surveyor, Instrumentman Surveyor, Rodman Sr. Construction Inspector Construction Inspector Senior Chemist Chemist/Bacteriologist Laboratory Technician Librarian Technical Typist Typist Reproduction Personnel DIRECT HOURLY RATE - RANGE $19.625 - 20.125 16.75 - 19.50 12.125 - 13.875 8.75 - 11.875 ' 5.00 - 7.375 4.50 - 4.75 10.125 7.625 - 8.625 3.00 - 4.75 8.75 5.375 3.125 8.625 5.375, 7.25 - 8.375 5.375 - 6.25 3.25 - 4.75 6.00 5.125 - 5.75 3.00 - 4.75 3.00 - 5.125 *1 See Exhibit C - Direct Hourly Salary Costs; Assumes 6 month performance and 8% salary escalation annually. 0 EXHIBIT B ENGINEERING REPORT AND STUDY ON SCAVENGER WASTE IN TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MANHOURS VS. TASK x x x x x x x �4 HOURLY ) r oN <4co <d., VLO <co <t- <00 <M TOTAL RATE H E-4 E- E-4 E- E-+ E-+ Ei E-{ HOURS *1 TOTAL PROJECT MANAGER 1 1 3 6 4 1 1 1 24 42 $18.49 $ 777 PROJECT ENGINEER/SCIENTIST 5 2 10 30 30 20 6 2 24 129 13.26 1,711 STAFF ENGINEER/SCIENTIST 15 6 11 60 60 30 - 24 - 206 10.52 2,167 ASSISTANT ENGINEER/SCIENTIST 1 2 2 45 30 18 - 1 - 99 6.31 625 TECHNICIAN (ENGINEERING AIDE) 1 - 5 8 32 6 - 1 - 53 4.72 250 DESIGN DRAFTSMAN 1 1 10 8 1 1 1 - 1 24 10.33 248 DRAFTSMAN 1 1 1 16 16 2 - - - 37 8.29 307 JUNIOR DRAFTSMAN 1 - 1 8 10 - 1 1 - 22 3.95 87 TECHNICAL TYPIST 1 1 2 12 16 4 1 - - 37 5.55 205 TYPIST 1 - 3 8 10 2 1 1 3 29 3.95 115 REPRODUCTION 3 1 4 12 6 1 1 1 - 29 4.14 120 TOTAL HOURS 31 15 43 213 224 85 12 33 51 707 $6,612 *1 See Exhibit C - Direct Hourly Salary Costs; Assumes 6 month performance and 8% salary escalation annually. 0 .R, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C62M CORP. ` L - 1 1979 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOL - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT ItASTEWATER FACILITY STUDY July 31, 1979 A. The Town of Southold, Town Board, by resolution of June 21, 1977, agreed to participate with the Village of Greenport in the Wastewater Facility Study of the mainland portion of the Town of Southold. The total cost of said study was $95,449.00. The study is supported by a USEPA Federal grant of 75%, or $71,586.75. The remaining local share of $23,862.25 was agreed to be shared 70% ($16,703.58) by the Town of Southold and 30% ($7,158.67) by the Village of Green- port. B. In order to resolve the compliance requirements of the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for continued scavenger waste disposal, the Town Board by resolution dated October 10, 1978, authorized Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P. C. to negotiate with the USEPA for an additional Federal grant to resolve this problem. C. By approval of Supervisor Martocchia on December 12, 1978, the Town entered into a subsequent additional study for scavenger waste treatment under the 201 Wastewater Facility Study. The additional cost estimated for this study was $22,792.00 which would be borne by a 75% USEPA grant in the amount of $17,094.00 with the remaining local share of $5,698.00 borne by the Town of Southold. D. The local shares reported in Items A and C above would be reimbursed 507o by the NYSDEC under the Environmental Quality Bond Act at such time as any portion of the 201 Study reaches Step III (construction). HAD/pak r PROJECT Greenport/ Southold 201 COST SHARING SCHEDULE EPA NYS * TOTAL SHARE SHARE COST (75%) (12 jolo) $ 95,450.00 $71,588.00 $11,931.00 Southold Scavenger Waste Study" ',4—') (Amendment No. 1) 31,172.00 TOTAL $126,622.00 '7 , y y• 23,379.00 $94,967.00 2 S `l9 3,896.00 $15,827.00 /C7 ?6a LOCAL SHARE (12M TOWN OF VILLAGE OF SOUTHOLD GREENPORT $ 8,352.00 $3,579.00 (70%) (30%) 2Fr1J7 3,897.00 (100%) $12,249.00 //, ;Lo/, - $3,579.00 *State share to be pa. -id by the locality -in the ' local �percentages shown until Step 3. / ✓; �. O �%� �T<T r�C-o-..t ti ��lt �VJ Gi �t�dLlstiGC or 2S PDX 20 °1' o 2S V 1 �7 0 1 Town of Southold BILL OF do For Services and Disbursements as Claimed, $ ............... S.... . Allowed, $ .................... Audited ................ 19... ............................. CWk ..............................., N. Y.,.?�to���..�.......19.7.9.. SYN YO SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, N. Y., Dr. y� r F ^'ZMACHER McLENDON & MU j ............:..........................RRELL, P.C. ..............ClalIIlBnt F 6'`:1'4"`:•' �i;��� Address... 500 Broad Hollow Road: Melville, NY 11747 u Fed. I. D. No. 11-2235604 .............. or Soc. Security No. .................... 10/4/79 GRSO 77-01 — 201 WASTEWATER FACILITY STUDY 1OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In accordance with Town Board Resolution dated June 21, 1977, and Engineering er__vi Contract dated November 14, 1977, the Town es agrees to pay 709 0 TOTAL STUDY COST: $95,449.00 FEDERAL AID 75% 71,586.75 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SHARE (70% X 23,862.25) 1$16,703.58 AMOUNT PAYABLE $16,703 58 The undersigned (Claimant) (Acting on behalf of above named Claimant) does hereby certify that the (Cross out one) foregoing claim is true and correct and that no part thereof has been paid xcept as therein stated, and that the balance therein stated is actually due and owing. Dated ..................Oc-toJaer ..5...... 19....7.9.... ...:. .................................... Signature H. A. Dombeck, P.E., Vice President • I } H 2M Corp. HOLZMACHER,McLENDON andMURRELL,P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS 500 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD, MELVILLE, NY 11747(516) 694 30400 560 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD, MELVILLE. NY 11747 (516) 7529064 375 FULTC,, STREET, FARMINGDALE. NY 11735 (516) 694-3410❑ eC PARK PLACE, NEWTON, NJ 07860 (201) 383-3544 C1 May 15, 1979 Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Chairman - Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 ROBERT G. HOLZMACHER, P.E.. P.P.. L.S SAMUEL C. McLENDON. P.E. NORMAN E. MURRELL, P.E. HAROLD A. DOMBECK, P.E. HUGO D. FREUDENTHAL. Ph. D. CARL E BECKER. P.E. FRANK N. COPPA, P.E JOHN J MOLLOY. P.E. DONALD A SIOSS, P.E. CHARLES E. BANKS, P.E. ANTHONY SIMONE, L.S. JAMES B KELLEY, P.E. GARY E. LOESCH. P E. BRIJ M. SHRIVASTAVA, P.E. Re: Greenport/Southold 201 Study GRSO 77-02 Dear Mr. Raynor: Enclosed please find a preliminary copy of our nitrate evaluation for the Town of Southold. This analysis is based on nitrate data obtained from shallow wells in 1974 and between 1975 and 1978. If we can be of any further assistance, please contact our office. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. Ga4 E. Loesch, P.E. GEL/pak Enc. HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON and MURRE , P.C. / H2M CORP. r 0'"x'1 �J J '6a+ i L „1 L 2.4 Nitrate Concentration in Groundwater Nitrate concentrations in the groundwater of Southold are significantly higher than most of Suffolk County groundwater as shown in Section 3.1.1.8B of the Engineering and Environmental Data Report. An average of 59 percent of the Upper Pleistocene (Glacial) wells tested in Southold had nitrate concentrations at an unacceptable level, while the Suffolk County average was only 11 percent.(l) However, it should be substantiated that the nitrogen source stems more from the extensive use of fertilizer on agricultural land than from the use of on-site subsurface septic systems in populated areas. An evaluation of previous studies which examined areas with high nitrate concentrations indicates areas where high nitrate plumes have developed. Figure 2.4.1 depicts these areas based on 1974 test data. By updating this map with 1975 through 1978 nitrate data, the movement or change in the plumes could be detected. Laboratory test data for 1977 and 1978 was obtained from Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) on private wells within Southold Township. SCDHS also maintains twenty observation wells within the Township that were tested yearly. Highlighting those wells for which the nitrate concen- tration is equal to or greater than 8 mg/l nitrogen, new areas with high nitrate concentrations were located as shown on Figure 2.4.2. By comparing the areas of high nitrate concentrations on (1) Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, "Comprehensive Public Water Supply Study of Suffolk Co., NY" 1970. are expanding Based on present land use, the center of each plume correlates to a heavy agricultural region. However, in some areas that are not agriculturally worked, such as Matti - tuck, nitrate problems are now developing. Figure 2.4.2 indicates that the nitrate plumes are expanding into the Matti - tuck area from the agricultural regions, in Cutchogue (to the east), and Northville in Riverhead (to the west). Further evi- dence that supports this: expansion can be found by evaluating the direction of groundwater flow. The direction of flow cor- responds with tho movement of nitrates to areas outside the immediate region of farmland. These oL.tside areas correspond to the addition to the plumes in 1975-1978. An attempt to differentiate between various nitrogen sources is a difficult task. In comparing the North Fork (Southold) of Long Island to the South Fork (East Hampton), we can further determine the adverse impact of fertilizer practices verses the use of on-site subsurface disposal systems on the groundwater. Table 2.4.1 compares the land use and population of the Town- ships of Southold and East Hampton. Both towns have similar hydrogeological characteristics and somewhat similar residential densities. In contrast, Southold has approximately 9,060 acres of agriculturally worked land, while East Hampton has only 1,580 acres. Long Island Water Resources Bulletin No. 8 has revealed that 100 percent of the glacial aquifer under Southold has at HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. r 74 �� ''T F` r7 ic-t i Figures 2.4.1 and 2.4.2; it can be seen that the nitrate plumes are expanding Based on present land use, the center of each plume correlates to a heavy agricultural region. However, in some areas that are not agriculturally worked, such as Matti - tuck, nitrate problems are now developing. Figure 2.4.2 indicates that the nitrate plumes are expanding into the Matti - tuck area from the agricultural regions, in Cutchogue (to the east), and Northville in Riverhead (to the west). Further evi- dence that supports this: expansion can be found by evaluating the direction of groundwater flow. The direction of flow cor- responds with tho movement of nitrates to areas outside the immediate region of farmland. These oL.tside areas correspond to the addition to the plumes in 1975-1978. An attempt to differentiate between various nitrogen sources is a difficult task. In comparing the North Fork (Southold) of Long Island to the South Fork (East Hampton), we can further determine the adverse impact of fertilizer practices verses the use of on-site subsurface disposal systems on the groundwater. Table 2.4.1 compares the land use and population of the Town- ships of Southold and East Hampton. Both towns have similar hydrogeological characteristics and somewhat similar residential densities. In contrast, Southold has approximately 9,060 acres of agriculturally worked land, while East Hampton has only 1,580 acres. Long Island Water Resources Bulletin No. 8 has revealed that 100 percent of the glacial aquifer under Southold has at HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURR*P.C. / H2M CORP. r '. r:.5 iJi a •� a lb Wt�'� r�� J ��•.i. TABLE 2.4.1 CHARACTERISTIC COMPARISON OF SCUTHOLD* VS. EAST HAMPTON (Based on 1975 Data.) Total Acreage Agricultural Acreage Residential Acreage Year -Round Population Seasonal Population** Equivalent Total Population Equivalent Density (Total Average) Density (Residential Acreage) 29,871 9,060 4,150 14,733 3,219 17,953 .60 persons/acre 4.3 persons/acre EAST HAMPTON 46,416 1,580 6,034 13,053 4,789 17,842 .38 persons/acre 3.0 persons/acre * Excludes the Inc. Village of Greenport Sewer District ** Based on seasonal homes being occupied for 4 months/year. SOURCE: 11SRPB - 208 Study, Summary Plan HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRE*C. / H2M CORP. 17 n� R 1L t_41 t 0 L least moderate to high nitrate concentrations. East Hampton on the other hand, has only 10 percent of its glacial aquifer with moderate to high nitrate concentrations, with 90 percent of the aquifer having a low nitrate concentration. The one area of East Hampton that contains the moderate to high nitrate concen- tration correlates to the agricultural land use in the Town. In addition, we have estimated the nitrogen load to the groundwater from on-site subsurface sewage disposal systems and from agriculturally worked areas within Southold Township. As- suming an annual average wastewater nitrogen loading of 10 pounds per person and that 45% of the loading will leach to the ground- water, we have estimated the nitrogen loading to be approximately 72000 pounds from on-site subsurface sewage disposal systems. We have conservatively estimated the annual nitrogen loading from agricultural fertilizers to be approximately 453,000 pounds, assuming an annual average nitrogen loading of 200 pounds per agriculturally worked acre, and that 25% of the nitrogen will leach to the groundwater. Our estimate indicates that of the two major nitrogen sources, 86% is from fertilizers used on agricul- turally worked areas and 147o from on-site subsurface sewage dis- posal systems. Based on the above data, we conclude that nitrate pollution in the groundwater is primarily due to the fertilizer practices used on 9,060 agricultural acres of Southold Township. Although on-site subsurface disposal systems constitute a nitrogen input HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURR*P.C. / H2M CORP. 'rm RE L I NO il A OR!h Y 0 H L source, structural alternatives to remove the nitrogen, such as sewering, will have a minor effect on the groundwater quality. Non-structural alternatives, such as fertilizer management, will have a far greater effect in reducing the nitrate input to the groundwater. • ROBERT G. HOLZMACHER, P.E., P.P., L.S. SAMUEL C. McLENDON, P.E. H 2M Corp. NORMAN E. MURRELL, P.E. HAROLD A. DOMBECK, P.E. H 4 LZMAC H E R, Mc LE N D Q N and M U R R E LL, P. C. HUGO O. FREUOENTNAL. Ph. D. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTq and PI ANNERS CARL E. BECKER, P.E. FRANK N. COPPA, P.E. 500 BROAD NO'._LJ':': ROAD. V; LVILLE. N Y. 11746. (51 5) 69,1 3040 0 JOHN J. MOLLOY• P.E. 560 BROAD HG'_L�':': ROAD. N1ELVILLE, N.Y. 11746 1516! 757-906 l DONALD A. SLOSS, P.E. 341 CONKLiN 5''.F FARVII rIG DALE. N Y. 11735. 15161 694-3410 C CHARLES E. BANKS, P.E. CLYDE PORTER. Jr., P.E. GO a:.4�E. NFWfGN, N J 07860 X709' 383-3544 ❑ pax' United States Environmental Protection Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 March 30, 1979 Re: Greenport/Southold 201 Study Scavenger Waste Study C-36-1120 GR30 73-01 Attention: fir. Carl Lingard, P.E. Gentlemen: enclose herewith three (3) copies eatii? of EPA Form 5700-32 and Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement (dated Nov. 14, 1977) for the scavenger waste study. Your early review of the enclosure :fill be appreciated. ;:would you have any estions, please call ou.r office. Very truly yours, LIOLaNACHER, licLE TDON & MURRELL, P.0 . C. B. Loesch, P.E. GEL/pak Ene . cc: Mayor Joseph Townsend, Village of Greenport Supervisor Albert. klartocchia, Town of Southold Gr port/soutbo2d 2ol Study Scavenger Waste Study C:-36-1120 GUO ?8-01 Attention: fir. Robert 0. mwpatonp Paz* coutl u s We enclose herewith three (3) copies each of r&pA form 5700-32 and ftendment No. I to the Agrement (dated Nov. 14, 1077) for the sosvenger w to study. Your early review of the enclosure will he appreciated. Should you have any questions, Please call our office. Very truly yours, 110L +iiACM, UcJ.M=N a MURREu, p. C. lQr�a Loeeah, P.E. GZL/pak Eno. cot Craig Porter, NYSDEc *payor Joasph To nd, Vil 'aa ge of Greenport ciupervi or Albert �rtoeohia, Town og Southold � ROBERT G. HOLZMACHER. P.E., P.P.. L.S. H 2M Corp.mhal SAMUEL C_ McLENDON, P E. NORMAN E. MURRELL, P.E. HAROLD A. DOMBECK, P.E. HOLZMACHER,McLENDON and MURRELL,P.C. ` HUGOD FREUDENTHAL. Ph. D. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS CARL E BECKER, P.E. FRANK N COPRA, P.E. boo BROAD H-]lLov, PJ -.o VELViu EN Y 11746 1516) 694-3040 ❑ JOHN J MOLLOY. P.E. DONALD A. SIOSS P.E. 550 BROAD H(,,Ec C)AD, ry _,E NY 117-16 ;bi6i 752-9060 - CHARLES E. BANKS. P.E. 341 (C�,E._•N SIRE' ���Rr. ir.Go-+.LE. N Y. in3b Sisl 694 34q CLYDE PORTER. Jr , P.E. �O PAR: I,.ACF, N-V.'(C'! N.! 07880. i2GI) 3333544 ❑ - �t March 30, 1979 9-r a' n. New Yor��kState Department ent }of E +/ ental 50 Wolf Road t , •, is ` Albany, New Fork 12233 ,:��>,.�•- Gr port/soutbo2d 2ol Study Scavenger Waste Study C:-36-1120 GUO ?8-01 Attention: fir. Robert 0. mwpatonp Paz* coutl u s We enclose herewith three (3) copies each of r&pA form 5700-32 and ftendment No. I to the Agrement (dated Nov. 14, 1077) for the sosvenger w to study. Your early review of the enclosure will he appreciated. Should you have any questions, Please call our office. Very truly yours, 110L +iiACM, UcJ.M=N a MURREu, p. C. lQr�a Loeeah, P.E. GZL/pak Eno. cot Craig Porter, NYSDEc *payor Joasph To nd, Vil 'aa ge of Greenport ciupervi or Albert �rtoeohia, Town og Southold � R FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 2• APPLI- a. NUMBER 3. STATE CANT'S GRSO 78 -PI APPLICA- 1. TYPE pREAPPLICATiON APPLI• b. DATE TIONTI- ACTION APPLICATION CATION 19 Yeoi m� to l i FIER ` (Mark ap ❑ NOTIFICATION OF INTENT (Opt) yeaY1 4 yropriat0 Cos) ❑ REPORT OF FEDERAL ACTION B►aaTa 4. LEGAL APPLICANT/RECIPIENT s. Applicant Nam. :Inc. Village -of -Greenport b. Organization Unit c. Str@WP.O. bon :236 Third Street it. City :Greenport o. cavad :Suffolk f. State :New York it. zipcd.:11944 b. Conts:t Parson (Nab@ A tekPhoae Na.) :Joseph Town send- 516-477-0� 7. TITLE AND DESCRIPI'ION OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT Phase I - Town of Southold/Village of Greenport Section 201 Wastewater Facilities Study a. NUMBER b. DATE ASSIGNED 0M9 Approval No. 29-11111811S Year r*nth days 19 r" 5. FEDERAL EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NO. PRO. a. NUMBER IFI Is (- 10 111 A GRAM 6. TITLE (edam Federal Construction Grants for "t catarap) I Wastewater Treatment Wor 8. TYPE OF APPLICANT/RECIPIENT A -State N-Cowmusity Actles AgMry B-Interstats I- Higher Educational Institution C-Subststs J -Indian Tribe District R-Odw (Spowar) r D -taunt) E -City F-Seheoi District 11. ESTIMATED NUM- G -Softie, Purpose District ,ateappropriate letter 9. TYPE OF ASSISTANCE A -Basin Grant D -Insurance tl-Supplemental Grant "their abta? appro- gat C -Loan 4tter(s) EO ` 10. AREA OF PROJECT IMPACT (Nnoaams,es o) cities, counties. 11. ESTIMATED NUM- 12. TYPE OF APPLICATION Town of C�a�) BBER OF ENEFITING C - A -New FRwision E -Augmentation rS'outhoJ-t� B-RMIWa) D-COntinWhOn -Suffolk Count New York St a e20 000 aider appropriate letter (� 13. PROPOSED FUNDING 14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF: 15. TYPE OF CHANGE (For Jte yr its) B-DsA-Iaessa Dollar F-0tbar (specify) s a. FEDERAL s23,379 .00 s. APPLICANT b. PROJECT 1 1 D-Dcasese Duration Is. APPLICANT 7,793 oo E -Cancellation e. STATE 00 16. PROJECT START 17. PROJECT DATE Year moth day DURATION Eater appro d. LOCAL GO 19 Month. priats Mtter(a) l�L_LI e. OTHER -00 Year mo*84 day 18. ES IMATEDSUBMITT 19. EXISTING FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OTTtTO FEDERAL AGENCY 10- 1979 1 11 C-36-1120 f. TOTAL j 31 172 0o 20. FEDERAL AGENCY TO RECEIVE REQUEST (Nanta, City, Stala. Z(P.oda) 21. REMARKS ADDED V EPA Re ion II 26 Federal Plaza N.Y. N.Y. 1000 V" ID Na 22. a. To the bat of my aaalddle and belief, I b. If required by OMB Circular A-95 this application was submitter+. pursuant to ice- Nor@• Rapw@a gdata In this prsapplication/application aro stmiione tberela, to appropriate clearinghouses sad all taponsss are attached. o"nas attached THE APPLICANT true and correct. the dominant hes been duly authorized by No governing body of (1) 0 CERTIFIES THAT go- the applicant and the applicant will comply with the aGschd assurances If the mala- 0 ante, N approved. 11 Q 23. s. TYPED NAME AND TITLE b. SIGNATOR ATE SIGNER CERTIFYING Joseph Townsend Year ria" day REPRE- SENTATIVE Mayor -Village of Gree ort ���` 197 4,2,2. 24. AGENCY NAME25. APPLICA• Yea► day TION RECEIVED 19 26. ORGANIZATIONAL UVIT MINISTRATIVE OFFICE 21L FEDERAL APPLICATION IDENTIFICATION 29. ADDRESS 30. FEDERAL GRANT IDENTIFICATION 31. ACTION TAKEN 32. FUNDING Year mouth day 34. Yew month day ❑ a. AWARDED 33. ACTION DATE ► 19 STARTING DATE 19 a. FEDERAL j .00 ❑ b. REJECTED b. APPLICANT OD 35. CONTACT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMA- 36. Yaw mouth day TION (Name and telsphon. number) ENDING ❑ c. RETURNED FOR c. STATE ,00 DATE 19 it. LOCAL 00 37. REMARKS ADDED I NJENDMENT ❑ d. DEFERRED a. OTHER .00 I ❑ s. WITHDRAWN ❑ Yee ONO f. TOTAL S .00 JB _ reived from tlesringhouses ware eon- .. In tatinl .bore eu on, any comments ec b. FEDERAL AGENCY A-95 OFFICIAL sidered. If alancr respsnsa Is due under provisions of Part 1. OMB Circular A-95, (Name and tfiepAons aro.) FEDERAL AGENCY it ha: leen or is Wing made. A-95 ACTION E PA Form 5700.32 (Rev. 6-76) PAGE i OF 16 STANDARD FORM 424 PAGE 1 (10-76) Preaora4d! by GSA, Federal JMaa`Yen@us Cirertw *4 Form Approved i DMB No. 138-R0134 PART 111 — BUDGET INFORMATION — CONSTRUCTION SECTION A — GENERAL 1. Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog No ..................... 66-015 2. Functional or Other Breakout ............................ SECTION S — CALCULATION OF FEDERAL GRANT Cost Classification Use only for revisions Total Amount Required Latest Approved Amount Adjustment + or t-1 1. Administration expense $ — $ $ --- 2. Preliminary expense 3. Land structures, right -of -way 4. Architectural engineering basic fees 5 126.622 5. Other architectural engineering fees 6. Project inspection fees 7. Land development 8. Relocation Expenses 9. Relocation payments to Individuals and Businesses 10. Demolition and removal 11. Construction and project improvement 12. Equipment 13. Miscellaneous 14. Total (Lines 1 through 13) 95,450 31,172 126,622 15. Estimated Income (ifapplicable) 16. Net Project Amount (Line 14 minus 15) 95,450 31,172 126,622 17. Less: Ineligible Exclusions 18. Add: Contingencies 19. Total Project Amt. (Excluding Rehabilitation Grants) 95,450 31,172 126,622 20. Federal Share requested of Line 19 71,587 23 , 379 94,966 21. Add Rehabilitation Grants Requested (100 Percent) 22. Total Federal grant requested (Liv. 20 & 21) 71,587 23,379 94,966 23. Grantee share 23,86 7,793 31,656 24. Other shares 25. Total project (Liner 22. 23 & 24,+ $ 95 , 450 $ 31,172 $126,622 E PA Form 5700.32 (Rev. 6-76) PAGE B OF 16 A 1% "I& Form Approved OMB No. 158•R0134 9PA Pana 5700-32 (Rev. 6.76) PART IV PROGRAM NARRATIVE (Attach—See Instructions) PAGE 10 of 16 SECTION C — EXCLUSIONS Classification Inaligibla for Participation 111 Excluded from Contingency Provision (2) a. $ $ b. C. d. e. f. 9. Totals s $ SECTION D — PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING NONFEDERAL SHARE 27. Grantee Share $ 7,793 a. Securities b. Mortgages c. Appropriations (By Applicant) d. Bonds e. Tax Levies Town Of Southold 7,793 I. Non Cash g. Other (Explain) h. TOTAL — Grantee share 7,793 28. Other Shares a. State b. Other c. Total Other Shares 29. TOTAL $ 7,793 SECTION E — REMARKS 9PA Pana 5700-32 (Rev. 6.76) PART IV PROGRAM NARRATIVE (Attach—See Instructions) PAGE 10 of 16 a Neve York State Depa. tment of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233, EtECE11f ED_ ' = + Robert F. F1 acke Commissioner Parch 1, 1979 iHpID TOWK Mr. Harold Dombeck Hol zmacher, f1cLendon & Murrell, P. C. 500 Broad Hollow Road Melville, NY 11745 Re: Town of Shelter Island Scavenger Waste Suffolk County Dear Mr. Dombeck: In response to your letter of January 12, 1979, we have scheduled a meeting to be held in room 1029 at 25 Federal Plaza in Net, York City on Monday, March 19, 1979, at 1:00 p.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the scavenger waste situation in the Town of Shelter Island and the possible inclusion of Shelter Island in the Greenport/Southold 201 Facilities Planning study area. If there are any questions regarding this meeting, please telephone Mr. Craig Porter, P.E., Prcgram Engineer at (518) 457-3790. Sincerely, Robert G. Hampston, P.E. Chief. Metropolitan Projects Section Bureau of Sewage Programs RGH/CEP/mc cc: NYSDEC Region 1 - Pr. Yerman SCDEC - Mr. Marletti Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Supervisor Leonard T. Bliss Supervisor Albert iiartocch i a Mayor Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. James I. "lonsell, Supt. of Utilities (Village of Greenport) USEPA - Region II - PIr. Salkie flYSDEC - t4ater Management Bureau - Mr. O'Toole NYSDEC BSP - Project Development Section -Fir. Esmond JUDITH T. TERRY - TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS L-A OFFICE OF TOtiVN` CLERK r ; TOWN OF SOUTHO D SUFFOLK COUNTY r Southold, L. I., N. Y. 11971 February 23, 1979 Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, PC. 500 Broad Hollow Road Melville, New York 11746 re: Attention: Gary E. Loesch Project Engineer Dear Mr. Loesch: • TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Greenport/Southold 201 Study Scavenger Waste Study Transmitted herewith are seven (7) copies of Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement for 201 Study, Scavenger Waste Study. A resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Board at a regular meeting held February 22, 1979 approving this amendment. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Town Clerk MEN D_ - January 22, 1979k'F i Supervisor Albert Martocchia Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Greenport/Southold 201 Study Scavenger Waste Study Dear Supervisor Martocchia: In accordance with USEPA requirements to perform the scavenger waste survey under the on-going 201 Study we have prepared a contract Amendment. Enclosed, please find seven (7) copies of Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement (dated November 14,1977). After your review, please execute same and return all seven (7) copies to our office for further processing. A copy of the executed final agreement will be forwarded to your office. If there are any questions, please contact our office. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. Gary E. Loesch Project Engineer GEL/pak Enc. ROBERT G. HOLIMACHER, P E_ P c '; S H 2M Corp. SAMUEL McLENDON.PE NORMAN E MURREL..L, P E. HAROLD A DOMBECK, P E HOLZMACHER,McLENDON andMURRELL,P.C. HUGOD.FREUDENTHAL. Ph C CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS CARL E. BECKER P_E. FRANK N COPPA P.E JOHN .J MOLLOY PE DONALD A SOSS, P E CHAHL.ES F BANKS P L'YDF PORI EH i" P F MEN D_ - January 22, 1979k'F i Supervisor Albert Martocchia Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Greenport/Southold 201 Study Scavenger Waste Study Dear Supervisor Martocchia: In accordance with USEPA requirements to perform the scavenger waste survey under the on-going 201 Study we have prepared a contract Amendment. Enclosed, please find seven (7) copies of Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement (dated November 14,1977). After your review, please execute same and return all seven (7) copies to our office for further processing. A copy of the executed final agreement will be forwarded to your office. If there are any questions, please contact our office. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. Gary E. Loesch Project Engineer GEL/pak Enc. P.OBERT G HOLZMACHER P E P P L S SAMUEL C McLENCON PE NORMAN E MURRELL P E. •N H2M Corp. HAROLD 001,+8ECK,PE HOLZMACHER,McLENDON andMURRELL,P.C. t ; HaGOO Cori'_ E 8_C-IKERN PE EPh 0 E CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS 1 ER.. K N COPPA. PE C�vJ he GY PE -HF.R r • � : E 11 w December 12, 1978 DEC 2 0 1979 Mr. James I. Monsell Inc. Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, New York 11944 Re: Greenport/Southold 201 Wastewater. Facility Study GRSO 77-01` Dear Jim: Enclosed please find a USEPA request for reimbursement for the 201 Study. Kindly have Mayor Townsend execute each copy, retaining one for your files and returning three copies.. Your early attention to this request will be appreciated and will facilitate early EPA payment on this project. Best wishes for a Merry Christmas. HAD/pak Enc. Very truly yours, HOLZ ACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. A. Dombeck, P.E. �tK r a - ,`'� Y 0600 MO. Po."oiol OUTLAY REPORT AND REQUEST FOR I Ele ; A°'"`r "'I o'°'""°''° °t 1. U a 0v Giant Mb ,•• °'''« REIMBURSEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS USEPA C-36-1120 3. TTY° •1 Raq.toat ,. naala of Raq pool 1 P«No1 peyetant Ragl.oat No. U Final O Cash 2 -. ( P«lul Accrw/ fganNltlte A. E.P/aI°r IHnNfication f4a. 7. Grantee Atcowl No. or NanlilTtn° e, Patlol Iyroral (Month, Doff. Yes') _ 1 No. FROM TO 11-6002115 1 GRSO 77-01 7 1 29 78 12 1 78 9. Name of Gontaa O•saftla."10, 10. Natme of Paves (II Iltlerant than flaw 9) _INC. VILLAGE.OF GREENPORT of•at, aa. Na vara afaltf ao. Amo aaMt Village Hall 236 3rd St ' a... _ SfA14 Pa toot Soft .IA It f. coat 1 Greenport, NY 11944 �f 11 STATUS Of FUNDS + PROGRAMS — FUMLTIO446 — ACTIVITICS ruaat•tr.*mw 111. (b 1 (3) - a. Adlumistiative expense $ s j b. Preliminary expense .. ............ . c. Land,structuies, rightef-way ....... ... . 201 Study $37,371.27 a. Alrtideclutal eogineenng basic lees........... . e. Utner atdodectutal engineering lees ............ t. Plol'�f Inspection fees .............. . . . It .rod develu"t............ I ... I ....... ih. Relocation expense ............ ....... . i Relocation payments to indiv. and businesses .... . I Gemottliun and removal ................... . a tai.!. Chor1 and probed impiovernent cost. ...... 1. Equipment .......................... m Miscellaneous cost ..... ...... t ..... . I. Total cumulative to date (Sine of Lines am) ...... $37,371.27 3 1 TOTAL 7,371.27 37,371.27 0. Deluchons fa pogtaln income .......... ... t _ p Net cumulative to dale (Line n minus Line o)...... q Federal share to date . 75c0 .............. _28,028.45 28,028.45 I. Reh.ibilitatlon glaltts (lom IelinwisenNtnt) ..... s. Tidal Fedetal share (Sum of Lines q and f) ..... X28—, 0213_45 _ $2S,028.45 I Feaelar payments pievioushy requested........ . �.`T..3_#_26-0__0 0 j _ $23,260.00 u k?witnt tequesled lot teltnbulstawttt ........... ,1 ,768.45 s e • • 1,768 S 5 r A.tfni d j >Jarrtl tae0klt�d 1 s •l {i • � s 1 •J a af.l IL a710.. 1 ars. It •1d ".. •1 b.1.4 .•••• sl O.tr ...•ter••• rr tot.• P. .t �.� •►a. .w°...�a.w•r.wi.y.. •.wt. .�. 1 dr•) •A«. s..• •L..A ..a• +a a.•+ P.a..t•r Al, r°w...1s1 rna •;M r .••Kn.+. b$ fod.rtma/ a*I til .•.A -• .a acca.Iwao ►IIA tAa 1...•A .1 the p.nl. GRANTEE ��' _J()seph L. Townsend, Jr. h' Tllto• !sayor �/ EF 0.16 41101. 9.71) h. STATE, LOCAL, OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REPREStNTATIVE " H . A. Don)beck PE. olzmacher, Me enaoti & Murrell FIX j.laphana No. J 1 0 Title T000phana Na. 5 16 4_77-0248 Proj^ Manager 752-9060 Da+a;W, itad Iltual (3,610 12/12/78 111.-I'L. AL1 5 1 I•A I UttM t55U•1U 1:-14. 1.WC,f f5 00`0L t.. IF. Supervisor Albert Martocchia Town of Southold „�jr„ ±-0-, Town Hall` Main Road Southold, NY 11791 Re: Town of Southold Scavenger Wastes Disposal GRSO 78-01 Dear Supervisor Martocchia: In accordance with the Town Board's authorization of Octo- ber 10, 1978 we have contacted the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regarding the incorporation of Septic Management (Scavenger Waste) into the ongoing 201 Wastewater Facility Study. In concept they will approve such a study modification but require the specific details. These are incorporated into the enclosures and describe the specific work tasks and associated costs. The additional effort totals $31,172 which will be sup- ported 75%, or $23,379 by the USEPA; 1227 by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, or $3,896 (paid when project reaches construction); and the remainder of $3,897 by the Town. We understand that the revised compliance schedule for Scavenger Wastes incorporates this approach and requires USEPA grant ammendment by January 15, 1979. If you find the attached work effort and cost satisfactory, please execute Item 14 of USEPA Form 5700. Kindly return three (3) executed copies to us to forward to USEPA. Should any questions arise, please call our office. Very truly yours, HOLZM-CH McLENDON & 1I[TRRELL, P.C. '04 H. A. Do eck, P.E. HAD/pak Enc. cc: James I. Monsell t +� ROBERT u HOLZMACHER P , P F L S SAMUEL C McLENDON. P E. V H 2M Corp 1 f} '. HAROLD A. D MB CK. P.E I- �OLZMACHER,MoLENDON andMURRELL,P.C. ' � ' HucoD FREUDENrHAL.Ph. D CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS ! CARL E BECKER, P E FRANK COPPA.PE. JOHN J MOL LOY P E. DONALD TOSS. P.E CHAPLES F gAS,KS P.E CLYDE PCP.' -E.^, jr, P E December 4, 19('78\ ,_ L 1 �i L Supervisor Albert Martocchia Town of Southold „�jr„ ±-0-, Town Hall` Main Road Southold, NY 11791 Re: Town of Southold Scavenger Wastes Disposal GRSO 78-01 Dear Supervisor Martocchia: In accordance with the Town Board's authorization of Octo- ber 10, 1978 we have contacted the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regarding the incorporation of Septic Management (Scavenger Waste) into the ongoing 201 Wastewater Facility Study. In concept they will approve such a study modification but require the specific details. These are incorporated into the enclosures and describe the specific work tasks and associated costs. The additional effort totals $31,172 which will be sup- ported 75%, or $23,379 by the USEPA; 1227 by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, or $3,896 (paid when project reaches construction); and the remainder of $3,897 by the Town. We understand that the revised compliance schedule for Scavenger Wastes incorporates this approach and requires USEPA grant ammendment by January 15, 1979. If you find the attached work effort and cost satisfactory, please execute Item 14 of USEPA Form 5700. Kindly return three (3) executed copies to us to forward to USEPA. Should any questions arise, please call our office. Very truly yours, HOLZM-CH McLENDON & 1I[TRRELL, P.C. '04 H. A. Do eck, P.E. HAD/pak Enc. cc: James I. Monsell COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FUBAGREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA G&TS Form Approved (See accumpanying instruc Ions before c•ornr.!(,tm, this form) 0,11B No. 158-R0144 PARTI-GENERAL I. GRANTEE 2. GRANT NUMBER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD/INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT C-36-1120 3. NAME OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR 4. DATE OF PROPOSAL HOLZMACHER MCLENDON & MURRELL P.C. 12/4/78 S. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR (Include ZIP code) 6_ TYPE OF SERVICE TO BE FURNISHED 500 Broad Hollow Road Engineering Report and Melville, New York 11747 Study on Scavenger Waste 516-752-9060 in Southold PART II -COST SUMMARY 7. DIRECT LABOR (Specify "abor categories) See Attached Exhibit B ESTI- MATED HO MHOURLY HOURS RATE 941 s s ESTIMATED COST 8,467. TOTALS a $ 6,467.00 DIRECT LABOR TOTAL., E. INDIRECT COSTS (Specify indirect cost pool*) 185,0 Direct Payroll _ RATE xBASE 1.85$ 8,467. ESTIMATED COST 15,664. f' I 3•z INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL: $ 3. OTHER DIRECT COSTS e. TRAVEL ESTIMATED COST (1) TRANSPORTATION 40 X 16 64 (2) PER DIEM $ TRAVEL SUBTOTAL: 640- 4$ b. EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (Specify categories) QTY -- COST ESTIMATED COST PrintingInst Print 100$ 2.50 $ 250. EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL: 250. .. C. SUBCONTRACTS ESTIMATED COST NONE $ _ SUBCONTRACTS SUBTOTAL. $ — d. OTHER (Specify categories) ESTIMATED COST aboratory nalyses - See t. tache I;xh —ib i t C s 2, 085. OTHER SUBTOTAL: �- $ ` 2,975.00 e.i OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL: 10. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST I1. PIIOFIT Fixed Fee 15`7, $ 27 Iz. TOTAL PRICE _ 7 nn EPA Fo, n 5700-41 (2-76) PAGE I OF 5 i H 2M Corp. HOLZMACHER,McLENUONand MURR.ELL,P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS RECEIVED LouSbo_ua Iowa! A United States Environmental Protection Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Attention: Richard Caspe, P.E. Gentlemen: October 18, 1978 ROKc T j .;n__'dgCYcc cE, P c SAMA r 4YLENOCN P i " E NOP'-'--. P E NAR!;.., ONTECK P MUG^ UOc' J N i_P11 P AR_ KKER. PE CHIP S O ER POWERS P E FRANK N ".OPPA. P E. JOHN i V(IftoyPE CHI 94 %S P E 7GNA ,;SS P F JCMti "s PE CtYD , F Re: Town of Southold 201 Wastewater Facility Study C-36-1120 Recent policy of the Suffolk County Department of Environ- mental Control and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has been to abate point source pollution inputs. In co-operation with this policy the Town Board of the Town of Southold has 4pplied for a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit for disposal of its scavenger wastes. Presently these wastes are disposed of at the Town's landfill without treatment. It is expected that the SPDES permit when issued will have a compliance schedule that will require prompt cessation of present disposal practices. Present 201 Wastewater Facility Planning and 208 Areawide Wastewater Management Planning indicates that the present point source discharge should be halted. We believe that scavenger waste in the Township should be transported to the Village of Greenport for treatment and disposal at the existing facility. In order to meet the expected compliance schedule the Town Board of the Town of Southold respectfully request your approval of a,separate facility report dealing with Scavenger Wastes and Septic Tank Management as part of its 201 Facility Plan. Such a HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL!P.C. / H2M CORP. United States Environmental Protection Agency -2- October 18, 1978 tj separate document, complete with environmental assessment could be completed within six months and subsequently permit an immedi- ate Step 2-3 grant to be issued to recommended facilities. It is expected that such a separate document will require a grant modi- fication of approximately $25,000. Your early consideration of this request will be appreciated. At your convenience we will be pleased to meet with you to discuss this request. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHEJL,, McLENDON & MURRELL, P. C. O.A . D eck, P.E._ HAD/pak cc: Supervisor Albert Martocchia Carl Lingard, P.E., USEPA Robert G. Hampston, P.E., NYSDEC Albert Machlin, P.E., NYSDEC Region I William F. Graner, P.E., SCDEC James Pim, P.E., SCDEC Supt. James I. Monsell April 5, 1978 Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia Town of Southold 16 South Street Greenport, New York 11944 Re: 201 Wastewater Facility Plan Town of Southold/Inc. Village of Greenport GRSO 77-01 Dear Supervisor Martocchia: One of the tasks of the above referenced plan is to determine the volume and source of scavenger waste disposed of at the Town of Southold landfill site located in Cutchogue. To accomplish this our office proposes that a two week survey be conducted by Town personnel responsible for the operation of the land fill site. The basic data required for the survey will consist of, source of scavenger waste (residential, commercial or restaurant), the distance travelled (in five -mile increments), the truck capa- city and the actual volume dumped. This information is contained on the enclosed cards. We request that Town personnel distribute a set containing seven (7) of the enclosed cards to each carter who dumps scavenger waste at the landfill site, indicating to them the information requested and that upon their next trip to the site a completed card must be returned. In addition, on those occasions when the site is unattended the survey cards are to be held by the carter until they can be turned over to Town personnel. At the end of this survey return these completed cards to our office. If you have our office. r: 4: RECEIVED POR any questions regarding -the above please contact CP/pjk cc: `�Supt. James Monsell Raymond Dean, Supt. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON 6 MURRELL, P.C. Cly4 Porter, Jr., P.E. of Highways 2 fib_ ROBERT G. HOLZMACHER. P E P P_1 S SAMUEL C. McLENDON. P.ENORMAN H 2M Corp. E. P.E. HAROLD A. DOMBECK K. P.E HOLZMACHER,McLENDON andMURRELL,P.C..' _4- HUGO D. FREUDENTHAL, Ph. D ROBERTH ALBANESE.PE CONSULTING ENGINEERS ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS CARL E BECKER P.E CHRISTOPHER POWERS. P E nAD rc r. L F N 516, 6 3 FRANK N COPPA P E JOHN J MOLLOY. P.E L v F L � . N '� 1 17 t 6� 752 CHARLES E BANKS P.E. A ; ,,O',', ; FAR r,, I E NY 1 i' (51 Cs e ,a 3 .0 DONALD A SIOSS. P.E. : -< PLACE %E,%To�NJ 01'2 201 393 3,4_' ;J + JOHN W TOWERS. P.E. April 5, 1978 Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia Town of Southold 16 South Street Greenport, New York 11944 Re: 201 Wastewater Facility Plan Town of Southold/Inc. Village of Greenport GRSO 77-01 Dear Supervisor Martocchia: One of the tasks of the above referenced plan is to determine the volume and source of scavenger waste disposed of at the Town of Southold landfill site located in Cutchogue. To accomplish this our office proposes that a two week survey be conducted by Town personnel responsible for the operation of the land fill site. The basic data required for the survey will consist of, source of scavenger waste (residential, commercial or restaurant), the distance travelled (in five -mile increments), the truck capa- city and the actual volume dumped. This information is contained on the enclosed cards. We request that Town personnel distribute a set containing seven (7) of the enclosed cards to each carter who dumps scavenger waste at the landfill site, indicating to them the information requested and that upon their next trip to the site a completed card must be returned. In addition, on those occasions when the site is unattended the survey cards are to be held by the carter until they can be turned over to Town personnel. At the end of this survey return these completed cards to our office. If you have our office. r: 4: RECEIVED POR any questions regarding -the above please contact CP/pjk cc: `�Supt. James Monsell Raymond Dean, Supt. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON 6 MURRELL, P.C. Cly4 Porter, Jr., P.E. of Highways 40 PARK PLACE, NEWTON,. N.J. 07860.(201) 383-3544 ❑ 1 JUNN W. tUMM), Y.C. CERTIFIED MAIL April 3, 1978 1 RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED- Town Clerk Town of Southold 16. SouthStreet Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Gentlemen: F: RECEIVED APR 6 TOMS' Clerk 50010 d s Wastewater Facilities Study Town of Southold/Inc. Village of Greenport Our firm has been designated by the Town Board of the Town of Southold and the Board of Trustees of the Inc. Village of Greenport to conduct a Section 201 Wastewater Facilities Study for the Town of Southold. This study excludes Fisher's, Plum and Robins Islands which are isolated areas. The.objectives of this study are to provide comprehensive planning for wastewater facilities, maintenance of water quality in the adjacent surface waters and ground waters, and to allevi- ate pollution caused by sanitary sewage disposal. Results of this study will be binding on future applications for Federal Aid under PL 92-500, Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Therefore', in order 'to compile a list of all interested parties, we request that you list all interested groups and per- sons on the attached sheet and return it to our office within 14 days of the above date. If we do. not recieve a response to this letter within this time period, we shall assume you are not aware of such parties. Official notification of public meetings and hearings will be made to you and those parties who's names have been furnished. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. dL Cly4e Porter, Jr., P.E. Project Engineer CP/pak Encl. cc: Mr. James I. Monsell, Supt. of Utilities i H2M CORP, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. 0 Town Clerk Town of Southold TOWN OF SOUTHOLD/INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT SECTION 201 WASTE WATER FACILITIES STUDY PUBLIC INFORMATION List of Individuals and Groups NAME ADDRESS OFA CORK JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK of REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS Southold, L. N. Y. 11971 March 14, 1977 Mr. James I. Monsell Superintendent of Public Works Village of Greenport Greenport, New York 11944 Dear Jim: TELEPHONE 765-3783 The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Board at a regular meeting held on March 8, 1977: "Moved by Justice Demarest, seconded by Councilman Homan, WHEREAS, the water resources of the North Fork of Long Island are unique and fragile in quantity and its quality is becoming increasingly contaminated, and WHEREAS, the Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 provide for Federal Assistance to conduct studies of the protection of the water resources, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold is vitally concerned for the protection of the quality and quantity of the ground water resource, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board, in conjunction with the Village of Greenport herewith authorizes the submission of a Plan of Study to the New York State Department of Environmental Conserva- tion, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Holzmacher, McLeondon & Murrell, P.C. of Melville, New York, is directed to prepare the Plan of Study and attend meetings and conferences with the Unites States Environmental • Page 2 - James I. Monsell Protection Agency and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to receive approval of the Plan of Study, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. shall be paid the sum of $1,400. by both municipalities, of which the sum of $420. shall be paid by the Village of Greenport, and $980. by the Town of Southold, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia shall be authorized to execute such appli- cation and forms as may be necessary to submit the Plan of Study and aid application, and otherwise act in behalf of the Town Board to meet Federal and State requirements. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Supervisor Martocchia, Councilman Rich, Councilman Homan, Justice Demarest. This resolution was declared duly adopted." Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Town Clerk OBERT OF. HOLZMAiHER, P.E., P.P., L.S. • AMUEL C. McLENDON, P.E. ORMAN E. MURRELL, P.E. UGO D. FREUDENTHAL, Ph.D. AROLD A. DOMBECK, P.E OBERT H. ALBANESE, P.E. ARL E. BECKER, P.E. HRISTOPHER POWERS, P.E. HARLES E. BANKS, P.E. "ANK N. COPPA, P.E. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region I State University of New York Building 40 Stony Brook, N.Y. 11790 r: H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. Consulting Engineers, Environmental Scientists & Planners 500 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD, MELVILLE, N.Y. 11746 (516) 694-3040.8- 341 CONKLIN STREET, FARMINGDALE, N.Y. 11735 (516) 694-3410 ❑ 40 PARK PLACE, NEWTON, N.J. 07806 (201) 383-3544 ❑ January 3, 1977 Re: Town of Southold Inc. Village of Greenport 201 Wastewater Facilities Study Attention: Mr. Albert Machlin, P.E. Gentlemen: In behalf of the Town Board of the Town of Southold and the Board of Trustees of the Inc. Village of Greenport, we suhmit herewith a Plan of Study for a Wastewater Facilities Study under the auspices of Section 201 of PI. -92-500. (Eight copies of the document are enclosed). The study area consists of Collection District No. 13 of the Comprehensive Sewerage Study, Five Eastern Towns, WPC -CS -158. Your early review and comment will be appreciated. If the plan of study is in acceptable order, please forward it to Albany. If any questions arise, please -call our office. Very trul ours, AA. ER, 1cL 'NDON $ MURRELL, P.C. ec , F.E. ILA D: vm cc: U.S.E.P.A. (Mr. Richard Caspe, P.E.) N.Y,S.D.E.C. (Mr. Robert Ilanrpston, P.E.) Town Board, Town of Southold Board of Trustees, Inc. Village of Greenport Mr. James I. Monsell, Supt. of Utilities WATER RESOURCES • WATER SUPPLY & TREATMENT • SEWERAGE & TREATMENT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES • MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING 3 PLANNING WATER/WASTE WATER LABORATORY AND ANALYTICAL SERVICES . ZMACHER, P.E., P.P., L.S. ,AcLENDON, P.E. c. MURRELL, P.E. FREUDENTHAL. Ph.D. H 2 M CORP. ,D A. DOMBECK, P.E .ERT H. ALBANESE, P.E. .,ARL E. BECKER, P.E. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. CHRISTOPHER POWERS, P.E. Consulting Engineers, Environmental Scientists & Planners CHARLES E. BANKS, P.E. 500 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD, MFLVILLE. N.Y. 11746 (516) 694-3040 ❑ FRANK N. COPPA, P.E. 341 CONKLIN STREET. FARMINGDALE. N.Y. 11735 (516) 694-3410 ❑ 40 PARK PLACE. NEWTON, N.J. 07806 (201) 383-3544 ❑ January 3, 1977 Suffolk County Dept. of Environmental Control 1324 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, N.Y. 11787 Attn: Mr. William F. Graner, P.E. Re: Town of Southold Inc. Village of Greenport Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a Plan of Study for a Wastewater Facilities Study which has been submitted by the Town of Southold and Village of Greenport this date to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The Town and Village intend to apply for federal aid assistance to conduct the study under the auspices of a federal grant pro- vided by Section 201 of PL 92-500. Should you have any questions, please call our office. Very truly ours, A.A W.D "R, tcL iNDUN & MURRELL, P.C. 410.(- Heek P.. HAD: vm Encl. cc: Town Board, Town of Southold Board of Trustees, Inc. Village of Greenport Mr. James I. Monsell, Supt, of Utilities Same letter to: Nassau -Suffolk Regional Planning Board Suffolk County Dept. of Health Long Island State Park Commission WAIER RFSOUN rF • VIATFP, sUFF1Y �FAT!.<<r ! c,�;;•cR,�(F ?. TRCAth"!f.i ENVIRCI:MFNTAI "TIMIES WATER/'WASTE WATER LA.BCRATCF,'r A'dD A.•'Jni.YTICAI SFS'+I Ts STATE OF NEW YORK - PNRS LETTER OF INTE • 1 see reverse for Inst, S .P LIC. ID 1.8 )o not write above this line TRANSACTIOP .ICANT (Unit of Local Govt., Private Developer, etc) 12-45 C. Village of Greenport DEPARTMENT nrA(;I N Y 4679 I ADDRESS (Street) 12- --- Department of Utilities 'PLICAN45 tillage Hall, 236 Third Street CITY 4660 ZIPCODE 16- N PERSON 1 -4 Greenport, N.Y. 11944 H.A. Dombeck, p. E. 500 Broad Hollow Rd. 46.4 PHONE 49.55 - Melville N.Y 11-7 516 Exp -8659 APPLI ANT' R J 1 . 1 694-3040 _ J4 Wastewater Facilities Study - Town of Southold PROJECT DESCRIPTION 12-80 Nature, purpose, beneficiaries, substance of Ap�drLal,un, etc. (Use 6 lines it nreeded). 05 1.INE1 Application for Step I Planning Grant to conduct a Wastewater 12-80 Faciliti- 06 LINE2 Study of the Town of Southold. Study is to provide cost effective alt= 0 7 12.80 LINE3 natives and non-structural alternatives to alleviate deterioration of Q 8 12-80 LINE4 ground water quality from cesspool and scavenger waste diQn�eflt Q9 1280 LINE 5 12.80 10 LINE 6 PROJEI 1 Suffolk FED RAL A I FEDERAL AUTHOR Ii PROGRAM NO. 1246 LEGISLATION 17-36 12 66.400 PL 92-500 1 PROJECT LOCATIONCITYIS►,TOWN(S), VILLAGE(S) 46,79- Southold, 6-79Southold, Greenport EST APPL SUBM DATE 37-42 EST STD7 49.54 EST END DATE 5- MON DAY vEAI MOYEAR MON DAV y 3 1 77 777 6 30 17 —l••L-vurnUUMAMTITLE 12.71 13 Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment - 14 Environmental lProtection Agency FEDERAL SUB -AGENCY NAME 46.79 -- FEDERAL ADDRESS (street) 12-4 Water Quality Office 15 26 Federal Plaza CITY 46 so STATE 61-64 ZIPCODE 6 A. TY A LI I T New York N.Y. 10007 (x single most applicable box) B• TYPE OF ACTION r STATE ❑ 12 Ix as many boxes as apply) COMPLETE ALL QUESTIONS INTERSTATE COUNTY ❑ 13 014 NEW GRANT CONTINUATION GRANT STATEWIDE PROJECT? YES NO (R 21 Ill BY ADM. OR COURT ORDER? ❑29 CITY, TOWN, VILLAGE SCH. ®15 SUPPLEMENTAL GRANT ❑ 22 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRON IMPACT) 0 31 2) 33 DISTRICT ❑ 16 INCREASE DURATION 11 ENVIRON STATEMI-NT TO BE PREPARED?0 H24 35 ❑ SPECIAL UNIT ❑ 17 DECREASE DURA 1 ION ADVERSE ENVIRON IMPACT CANNOT BE O 2,r 16 COMMUNITY ACTION SPONSORED ORGN. 018 CANCELLATION INCREASE DOLLARS ❑ )tj AVOIDED? ❑ 37 $J ACOl11SI LANG? OTHER O20 DECREASE DOLLARS 7 USE L I ILII ? 0 2g USE k xIS11NG FACILITY? 0 41 D. REQUIRE NEW IF YES, INDICATE FACILITY? NEW FACILITY STAGE E. IS PROJECT IF YES: REGIONAL UNDER A-95? ARE PLANNING HAS PROJECT UNDO: CLEARINGHOUSE GONE CLEARINGHOI_ DOCUMENTS NOTIFIED? Site Con- REVIEW IN EARLIER AVAILABLE? YES NO Location C343 ® 44 Design struction YES NO PHASE? Yf5 NO ❑ 45 ❑ 46 ❑ 47 [A 411 ❑ YES NO VES NO 44 10-10 0 51 F. TYPE OF GRANT (CHECK AS MANY BOXES AS APPLY) ® 52 ❑ 53 ❑ 54 ® 5c OPERATING1 CAPITAL RESEARCH [1 58 ❑ 57 I [1 58 I 111aININ(; 1 I DEMUNSTRA I ION I PLANNING 59 LJ n � FEDERAL FUNDS 17 GRiOF 1220 OTHER 21.29 730 18 TYPE OTHER FEDERAL FUNDS 12.45 FUNDS REQUESTED (IN DOLLARS) _ r L� tf t MATCHING FUNDS STATE 30 38 OTHER LOCAL 39 47 FUNDS 4856 TYPE OF OTHER NON-FEDERAL FUNDS 49: ADDITIONAL ITEMS ATTACHED? YES W NOO IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE: ®ADD'L DESCRIPTIVE MATERIAL ®MAP ❑WORK PROGRAM []OTHER TOTAL FUNDS 57-66 73,500 i ROBERT G HOLZMACHER. P.E.. P.P.. L.S. SAMUEL C. MCLENDON. P.E. NORMAN E. MURRELL, P.E. HUGO D. FREUDENTHAL, Ph.D. HAROLD A. DOMBECK, P.E ROBERT H. ALBANESE, P.E. CARL E. BECKER, P.E. CHRISTOPHER POWERS, P.E. CHARLES E. BANKS, P.E. FRANK N. COPPA. P.E. • H2M CORP.'r4 T- HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.t Consulting Engineers, Environmental Scientists & Planner 500 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD, MELVILLE. N.Y. 117,16 (516) 694-3040 341 CONKLIN STREET, FARMINGDALE. N.Y. 11735 (516) 694-3410 40 PARK PLACE, NEWTON. N.J. 07806 (2011 383-3544 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED State Clearinghouse N.Y.S. Office of Planning Services 488 Broadway Albany, N.Y. 12207 Re: Gentlemen: January 3, 1977 Town of Southold Inc. Village of Greenport We enclose herewith a PNRS Letter of Intent for a Waste- water Facilities Study under PL 92-500, Section 201, Step I. The application which will be submitted to the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency will be for 75 per cent funding ($73,500.) of a $98,000. project. Should any questions arise, please contact our office. Very truly yours, 'HOLZMACHER, McLENDON • A. u9 beck, P.E. HA D: vm Encl. cc: Town Board, Town of Southold Board of Trustees, Inc. Village of Green ort Mr. James I. Monsellp , Supt, of Utilities SA14B LETTER TO: Tri-State RQgional Planning Commission Hassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board WATER RE-SOURCFS • WATER SUPPLY & TREATI.IrNT . SF%yERAGE X. TRFATMENT ENVIR0P;mENTA1 STUDIES • h1UNICIPA! d CI,;,rJN!N WATER/WASTE WATER LABORATORYAt4r) ANaUYUrei er.mnr ce & MURRELL, P.C. ROBERT G. HOLZMACHER. P.E., P.P., L.S. SAMUEL C. MCLENDON, P.E. NORMAN E. MURRELL, P.E. HUGO D. FREUDENTHAL, Ph.D. HAROLD A DOMBFCK, P.E ROBERT H. ALBANESE, P.E. CARL E. BECKER, P.E. CHRISTOPHER POWERS. P.E. CHARLES E. BANKS. P.E. FRANK N. COPPA, P.E. 0 General Manager Long Island State Belmont Lake State Babylon, New York Dear Sir: H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. Consulting Engineers, Environmental Scientists & Planners/ 500 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD. MELVILLE. N.Y. 11746 r5t5) 694-3040 p 341 CONKLIN STREET, FARMINGDALE, N.Y. 11735 (516) 694-3410 0 40 PARK PLACE. NEWTON, N.J. 07806 )201) 383-3544 0 ; 'If,:. 1s.; CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED December 29, 1976 Park Commission Park 11702 RE: Public Law 92-500 Application for Federal Aid The Town Board of the Town of Southold and the Board of Trustees of the Inc. Village of Greenport are submitting an application and plan of study to the New York State Depart- ment of Environmental Conservation and the United States En- vironmental Protection Agency for federal funding to conduct a waste water'facility study. This study will encompass an area of 45.1 square miles and is shown on the attached map. The objectives of the steely are to provide C0I1I1)rehensive planning for waste water facilities, maintenance of water qua- lity in the adjacent surface waters and ground waters, and to alleviate pollution caused by sanitary sewage disposal. Re- sults of this study will be binding on communities and agencies who submit future applications for federal aid under P.L. 92-500, Amendments to the Federal Nater Pollution Control Act. If you are interested in participating in the management and cost sharing of this study, please respond to this letter within 14 days of the above date. If we do not receive a re- sponse to this letter within this time period, we shall assume you are not interested in active participation. WATER RF500 !RCF • `NATER SUPPLY r A ,^^FATP`.FNT WATFRIWA;TE \VATFR 1l.BOP1MV, F,F:r /'Ia!YUCAL SEF"v1�; 5 H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. General Manager Long Island State Parl: Commission -2- December 29, 1976 In any event, you will be forwarded a copy of the plan of study and be invited to participate in the public information process during the course of the study. Very truly yours, HOLZ? IAC , McLENDON y iMIJRRFLL, P. C. 1 H.A. Donbeck, P.E. HAD/kc Encl. cc: USEPA (Richard Casp.e, P.E.) NYSDEC (Robert Hampston, P.E.) Town Board, Town of Southold Village Board, Village of Greenport Mr. James Monsell, Supt. of Utilities ROBEW G. HONACHER, P.E., P.P., L.S. G -SA MU(FREUDENTHAL, C. MCLENDON, P.E. HUGONORN E. MURREP.E. H2M CORP. HUGO Ph.D. HAROLD A. DOMBECK, P.E ROBERT H. ALBANESE, P.E. CARL E. BECKER, P.E. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. CHRISTOPHER POWERS, P.E. Consulting Engineers, Environmental Scientists & Planners CHARLES E. BANKS, P.E. 500 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD, MELVILLE, N.Y. 11746 Isis) 694-3040 O FRANK N. COPPA, P.E. 341 CONKLIN STREET, FARMINGDALE, N.Y. 11735 Isis) 694-3410 ❑ 40 PARK PLACE, NEWTON, N.J. 07606 (201) 383-3544 O November 12, 1976 Supervisor Albert Martocchia and Town Board Town of Southold 11 South Street Y Greenport, N.Y. 11944 Mayor Joseph Townsend and '70 �� Board of Trustees �� Inc. Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, N.Y. 11944 Re: Wastewater Facility Plan Town of Southold Gentlemen: Pursuant to our previous conversations with the Village of Greenport, Supervisor Martocchia and Planning Board Chair- man Wickham, we wish to propose that both municipal bodies join in sponsoring an application to the United States Environmental Protection Agency and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to perform a Wastewater Facility Study of the Town- ship. Such a study would be performed under Section 201 of the Amendments to the Water Pollution Control Acts of 1972, which would provide for 75 per cent Federal assistance to conduct the study. In addition, the 1972 New York State Environmental Quality Bond Act will provide a potential 12-1/2 per cent additional as- sistance, should any recommendations of the study be implemented in the future. The purpose of the study is to: 1. Protect the fragile water resources of the North Fork. 2. Ascertain the sources of contamination of the Glacial aquifer. 3. Determine the need for and level of treatment of waste- water which shall be utilized for recharge. WATER RESOURCES • WATER SUPPLY 8. TREATMENT • SEWERAGE & TREATMENT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES • MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING & PLANNING WATER/WASTE WATER LABORATORY AND ANALYTICAL SERVICES HOLzmACHER, McLENDON anOURRELL, P.C. / Consulting EnWers Supervisor Albert Martocchia Town Board, Town of Southold Mayor Joseph Townsend Board of Trustees, Greenport -2- November 123, 1976 4. Determine the locations for potential recharge. S. Prepare a complete environmental inventory which will be utilized to assess the impact of potential alternatives for the North Fork. 6. Prepare alternatives to implement the goals of the study. Such alternatives will be structural and non-structural. Non-structural options will enable each municipality to rein- force its zoning and planning to prevent the degradation of ground water quality. The first step to obtain these funds is to submit a Plan of Study to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The Plan of Study cites the needs for the study and the goals and bud- gets. This study complements the present 208 Wastewater Manage- ment Study now being conducted by the Nassau -Suffolk Regional Planning Board. We would be pleased to prepare the Plan of Study for the sum of $1,400., including attending meetings in behalf of the municipalities with USEPA and NYSDEC. Inasmuch as both munici- palities are vitally concerned with the North Fork water re- sources, we would suggest that apportionment be 70 per cent by the Township and 30 per cent by the Village. Should you wish to proceed, we have enclosed a draft reso- lution authorizing the preparation of the Plan of Study. If any questions arise, please feel free to call us. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER,�McLENDON $ MURRELL, P.C. HAD:vm cc: Mr. John Wickham RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A PLAN OF STUDY WITH THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WHEREAS, the water resources of the North Fork of Long Is- land are unique and fragile in quantity and its quality is be- coming increasingly contaminated, and WHEREAS, the Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Con- trol Act of 1972 provide for Federal Assistance to conduct studies of the protection of the water resources, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold is vitally concerned for the protection of the quality and quantity of the ground water resource, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board in con- junction with the Village of Greenport herewith authorizes the submission of a Plan of Study to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Holzmacher, McLendon $ Murrell, P.C. of Melville, New York, is directed to prepare the Plan of Study and attend meetings and conferences with the United States Environmental Protection Agency and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to receive approval of the Plan of Study, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. shall be paid the sum of $1,400. by both municipalities, of 1. which the sum of $y80. ha l �� paid by the Town of Southold, and BE IT FURTHER jgjj o 'tp, 1 j,at Supervisor Albert Martocchia shall be authoriz4d tq;uta such application and forms as may be necessary to submit Pl all of Study and aid application, and otherwise act in jm4i f u- the Town Board to meet Federal and State requiremento, 1 L 1 AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT made this day of &yem,1vC, 1977 by and between HOLZMACHER, McLENDON AND MURRELL, P.C., with offices at 500 Broad Hollow Road, Melville, New York 11746, hereinafter called the "Consultant" and the Town Board, Town of Southold and the Board of Trustees, Village of Green- port, a municipal corporation of the State of New York, here- inafter called the "Town/Village". WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Town/Village requires scientific, environ- mental and engineering consulting services in connection with the undertaking of a Wastewater Facilities Study and Report, and subsequent work in connection with the Town of Southold Drainage Basin, and WHEREAS, the Town/Village has selected the Consultant in accordance with U. S. Environmental Protection Agency proce- dures after public advertising, and WHEREAS, the Consultant is desirous of assisting the Town/Village by providing the necessary professional services in connection therewith, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises it is mutually agreed between the parties as follows; SECTION I 1. The Town/Village hereby agrees to employ and hire the services of the Consultant to perform and furnish professional consulting services hereinafter set forth, and the Consultant hereby accepts said employment and agrees to furnish said professional consulting services. 2. The terms of employment of the Consultant shall ex- tend from the date of the AGREEMENT until all work required of the Consultant hereunder is completed, except as may other- wise be provided for herein. 1. 1 1 • IL 3. That this AGREEMENT and the work outlined herein shall be conditioned upon the receipt of Federal Aid (in the minimum of 75 percent of eligible cost) to perform the work outlined and review of this AGREEMENT by the USEPA,. SECTION II The Consultant agrees to provide or perform: A. STEP I - FACILITIES PLAN 1. The Consultant shall prepare a Step I Wastewater Facilities Study of the Town of Southold Drainage Basin bor- dering the Long Island Sound on the North, the Town of River- head on the West, Peconic and Gardiners Bays on the South and Orient Point on the East. The study shall comply in all respects with the regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for such studies with the Plan of Study dated January, 1977, Revised February 25, 1977 and March 16, 1977, as approved by the NYSDEC on April 11, 1977 and USEPA on April 28, 1977, -and shall comply with the proposal for Environmental Engineering Services dated May 20, 1977, a copy of which is attached hereto and shall be considered a part of this contract (Appendix A). It shall in- clude the following basic elements: a. Environmental and Engineering Data Report, consisting of an evaluation of existing conditions in the planning area and forecasts of future wastewater load, in accordancewwith procedures in the "Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan" of the USEPA, May 1975. b. Alternative and Environmental Assessment Re- port consisting of an evaluation of the technical, economic, and environmental aspects of various alternatives, in accordance with said "Guidance." C. Selected Plan Report, consisting of prelimi- nary data and environmental impact of the selected plan, with implementation recommendation, in accordance with said "Guidance." d. Public Information Report, describing public information and participation, in accordance with said "Guidance." 2. Seventy-five (75) copies of the final report'shall be provided. B. SPECIAL SERVICES The following special services are not anticipated to be required in the course of the study. If they are required, they shall be provided only upon specific written authoriza- tion of the Board and written approval of the USEPA. 1. Soil investigations, including test borings, re- lated analyses and recommendations. 2. Land, aerial, hydrographic and topographic sur- veys and related office work for studies, property or easement acquisition and design. 3. Assistance as expert witness. 4. Assistance in audit and examination of records. C. INSURANCE With respect to Consultant's performance, he shall secure and maintain such insurance as will protect him from claims under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, if necessary, and from claims for bodily injury, death or property damage which may arise from the performance of his services under this AGREEMENT. He will further see that any subcontractors will have the necessary insurance with respect to claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act. D. U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REQUIREMENTS 1. The Consultant and all subcontractors agree to incorporate the USEPA "Required Provisions Consulting Engi- neering Agreements" (40 CFR 35B Appendix C-1), dated Decem- ber 29, 1976, as Appendix B to this AGREEMENT. 2. Inasmuch as the Consultant's professional lia- bility insurance is inapplicable where remedies are by binding arbitration, the parties herewith agree that the provisions of USEPA Appendix C-1 Par. 6 REMEDIES shall be resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction of the State of New York. 3. SECTION III The Town/Village agrees to compensate the Consultant on the basis of a cost plus a fixed profit, The Consul- tant shall not exceed a total cost of $95,449.00, without prior approval of the Board and grant increase by USEPA. This includes a fixed profit of $8,677.00. The fixed profit may not be changed except by the Town/Village and USEPA authorization in accordance with Federal Regulations. PARAGRAPH A. - STEP 1 - FACILITIES PLAN 1. Payments shall be made monthly as work progresses and on the basis of direct hourly costs expended plus overhead and expenses and a prorated portion of the fixed fee less 5 percent retained. 2. Overhead shall be established by USEPA procedures and audit. 3. Final payment for all work completed under the study, including retainages shall be made on submission of the Final Selected Plan Report, 4, Payment for work completed shall be made within 30 days of the date of payment request. The Consultant shall have the right to suspend work, without prejudice, after giving the Town/Village prior notification, for non- payment. PARAGRAPH B. - SPECIAL SERVICES When specifically authorized, payments for special services beyond the scope of the proposal shall be on the basis of the sum of all of the following: 1. Hourly rates of compensation. 2. 1.85 times hourly rates of compensation for overhead expenses (or as otherwise determined by audit). 3. Reimbursable expenses. 4. Ten (10) percent of the sum of Items 1, 2 and 3 preceding for profit and disallowed expenses not included with overhead. 4. PARAGRAPH C. - INSURANCE No specific payment shall be made. SECTION IV The Town/Village agrees and/or assures to perform or provide the following: A. ACCESS TO THE WORK The Town/Village and the cooperating municipalities and agencies will provide access to and make all provisions for the Consultant to enter upon public lands as required for the Consultant to perform such work as surveys and inspections in the development of the project. B. CONSIDERATION OF THE CONSULTANT'S WORK The Town/Village will give thorough consideration to all reports, sketches, estimates, drawings, specifications, proposals and other documents presented by the Consultant and shall inform the Consultant of all decisions within a reasonable.time. C. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS The Town/Village will hold all required special meet- ings, serve all required public and private notices, receive and act upon all protests and fulfill all requirements neces- sary in the development of the contracts and pay all costs incidental thereto. D. THE TOWN/VILLAGE REPRESENTATIVE The Town/Village representative shall be the Supt. of Utilities of the Inc. Village of Greenport, who shall have authority to transmit instructions, receive information, in- terpret and define Town/Village policies and decisions with respect to the materials, equipment and systems pertinent to the work covered by this AGREEMENT. 5. . r E. AUTHORIZING RESOLUTIONS The Town/Village herewith certifies that it is properly constituted and empowered under the laws of the State of New York to enter into contract with the Consultant and has duly authorized the Mayor and Supervisor to enter into and execute this contract, a copy of the authorizing resolution, dated day of , 1977 is attached as Appendix C. C1 T/tiTT/11T f1 Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. is a New York Professional Corporation doing business at 500 Broad Hollow Road, Melville, New York 11746. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto subscribed their names, affixed their respective seals, the day and year first above written. FOR THE VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT (seal) -joseft L. Townsend, Jr., Ma r FOR THE TOWN BOARD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD (seal) . f r � Albert M. Martocchia, Supervisor I' ROBERT G. HOLZMACHER, P.E., P.P., L.S. SAMUEL C. McLENDON, P.E. NORMAN E. MURRELL, P.E. HUGO D. FREUDENTHAL, Ph.D. HAROLD A. DOMBECK, P.E. ROBERT H. ALBANESE, P.E. CARL E. BECKER, P.E. CHRISTOPHER POWERS, P.E. CHARLES E. BANKS, P.E. FRANK N. COPPA, P.E. DONALD A. SIOSS, P.E. Inc, Village of Greenport ?.':i6 Third Street Greenport, New York 11344 H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. Consulting Engineers, Environmental Scientists & Planners 500 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD, MELVILLE, N.Y. 11746 (516) 694-3040 IN 341 CONKLIN STREET. FARMINGDALE, N.Y. 11735 (516) 694-3410 ❑ 40 PARK PLACE.. NEWTON, N.J. 07860 (201) 383-3544 ❑ October 28, 1:77 Re: Inc. Village of Green- port/Town of Southold 201 Vastewater Facilities Study (Step I) Attention: Mayor Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. Gentlemen: On October 11, 1377 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notilied you that your grant for Step I of a Facility Pian Nvas approved. There teeing no further impediment to proceeding with the study, we transmit herein three (3) executed copies of the engineering agreement. As soon as these are siWned ay the Village of Greenport and the To`,vn of Southold on pages 6, 7, and 8, and one copy is returned to us, work will begin. If you have any questions, please call me. We look for- ward to proceedinn on this first step in solving the water resource proolems of the area. Yours truly, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. 46; . MeLe don, .E. SCM: cvm Enclosures cc: Supervisor Aloert M. Martocchia Mr. James I. Monsell, Supt. of Utilities ,ATER Rf SOURC.ES • 'eti' R SIJP'LY N Tt EA,TMENT • SEA'ERA R TREATMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ST UPIES • r ;,'NIC ,AL ENGINEERING & PLANNIi G SOLID'vl.,ASTE L,SPOSAL + RESOI kCE RECOVERY • AIR POLLUTION ,ON FRO''_ VNATER 'AASTE WATER i.A 3OPATORY AND ANALY"TIC A_ SER 'ICES CONSULTANT: HOLZMACHER, McLENDON AND MURRELL, F.C. (seal) R Samue-1C . McLendon, P.E., Exec. V.P. STATE OF NEW YORK) ) ss: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) On this.,?0 day of ,1z"2', 1977, before me personally came SAMUEL C. McLENDON, to me known, and known to me to be the President of the firm of HOLZMACHER, McLENDON AND MURRELL, P.C.,. described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and he acknowledged to me that he executed the same as and for the act and deed of said firm. n � � N PUBLIC ��1; A. Jas NOTARY PUW York 140. -c;-/463-,. i 00 _ ,r;,. k, Co'_;nty Cert. F+i,j i N sscu (-unty � STATE OF NEW YORK) ,r� res M rcn 30, t9..�1. � ) ss. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) e On thisday of ���Ofx1�f�, 1977, before me personally came JO,SPE11 L. TOWNSEND, JR., to me known, and known to me to he the Mayor of the INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT, described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and he acknowledged to me that he executed the same as and for the act and deed of said Village. J ret �� NO'T'ARY PUBLIC r ° .'�," ALP -N Nc'z -lic, - York C 7. CO3'i'ilXai551 7 } ,i,»S :al,";1%� STATE OF NEW YORK) ) ss: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) On this `qday of �y�,,�1977, before me personally came ALBERT M. MARTOCCHIA, to me known, and known to me to be the Supervisor of the TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and he acknowledged to me that he executed the same as and for the act and deed of said Town. TARY PUBLIC T. ^l,Y York L p.r" rv9sro • rj APPENDIX A PROPOSAL OF HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. DATED MAY 20, 1977 APPENDIX B 40 CFR 35E Appendix C-1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "Required Provisions Consulting Engineering Agreements" December 29, 1976 APPENDIX C Resolution of the Town Board of the Town of Southold and the Board of the Inc. Village of Greenport autho- rizing Mayor Joseph L. Townsend, Jr., and Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia, to Execute a Contract with Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. a r ' R • • H2M CORP. r HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y. PROPOSAL AND ENGINEERING AGREEMENT FOR WASTEWATER FACILITY STUDY IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAY 20, 1977 H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. • INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y, PROPOSAL AND ENGINEERING AGREEMENT FOR WASTEWATER FACILITY STUDY IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD "APPENDIX A" t H2M CORP. � HOLZMACHER, MCLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C., herein submits its proposal to perform a Wastewater Facilities Plan in the Town of Southold, as set forth in a Proposed Plan of Study of January 1977*. This Plan of Study defines the area and scope of waste- water facilities planning needed to achieve the objectives of PL 92-500, under Section 201 of the Act. Section 201 provides for Federal assistance for municipal treatment planning and construction, under regulations promul- gated by the Administrator of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and administered by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The 201 process consists of three steps: STEP I - Facility Plan STEP II - Engineering and Specifications STEP III - Construction This proposal is for Step I, the Facility Plan. Its objec- tive is to select the best of many structural and non-structural wastewater alternatives, so as to protect and conserve the human and natural environment in keeping with the mandates of the Na- tional Environmental Protection Act. * Plan of Study Approved by NYSDEC, April 11, 1977. 1, • H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. (HM&M) and its Affiliate, the H2M Corp., are well qualified to perform this study. Their history includes many years of association with the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport, resulting in proprietary knowledge of the area. This, with over four decades of wastewater and water engineering, research and test- ing, including several 201 facility plans, is the expertise offered in this proposal. 2. i ' • H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. STATEMENT OF WORK Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. (HM&M) will per- form the work described in the proposed Plan of Study of Waste- water Facilities in the Town of Southold, January 1977. This document is incorporated herein by reference, except as modified below. 2.1 Responsible Agencies Throughout the course of the 201 Study, HM&M and its sub- contractors will coordinate with all regulatory and planning agencies. These include periodic meetings with: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II New York State Department of Environmental Conser- vation, Construction Grants New York State Department of Environmental Conser- vation, Region I Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control Town of Southold Planning Board Village of Greenport, Department of Utilities Suffolk County Department of Health Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Parks ,Nassau -Suffolk Regional Planning Board - 208 Waste- water Management Study Long Island State Park and Recreation Commission 3. H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. Such meetings will include progress reports which discuss the status of the study, findings, concepts and alternatives being considered, exchange of information required to establish definitive effluent limitations. 2.2 Study Format The study will follow the USEPA's "Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan," May 1975. So that the program can be organized into several distinct reporting milestones, we have structured the "Guidance" into the documents shown in the matrix in Figure 1. These milestones also represent USEPA payment points (see Section 4). 2.2.1 Effluent Limitations Federal law requires that the effluent limitations be pre- scribed by the State either under the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDLS) program, or the "303" program, if the receiving waters are "water quality limited." HM&M will not proceed into the evaluation of alternatives until either: a. definitive discharge standards or water quality stan- dards are received from the State, or b. temporary standards are issued together with the assur- auce that any evaluation or redesign will be covered by adequate additional funding. 4. H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. (1) (2) (3) Supplied by New York State Will appear as a separate report Sewer System Evaluation is not required FIGURE 1. MATRIX RELATING USEPA GUIDANCE TO HM&M MILESTONES 5. HM&M MILESTONES m � +J Cz i � 0. +� + v o a� c O a o o +� O + x .H w 4✓ r-4 Z r•-+ z c o C). O +J Cc ;-i at c + Cz a H +J 4, .H r-+ w x CQ r •rl ca +J o Ca r-1 O a S:'� CC H + > Q) a 4-4 4-Jcl C �+J - 1 O O Q +�� O N + U :3 rl F-, U .ri ii r-1 •.i Qi Ul r -i 4-1 y •r1 w 3 tx 4� d r-+ .n r-1 N z USEPA GUIDANCE SECTIONS 4.0 Facility Plan (1) 4,1 Effluent Limitation X 4.2 Assess Current Situation X 4.2.1 Introduction X 4,2.2 Existing Conditions of the Area X 4.2.3 Existing Flows & Treatment X 4.2.4a Infiltration/Inflow (2) 4,2.4b Sewer System Evaluation (3) 4.3 Assess Future Situation X 4.3.1 Planning Period X 4.3.2 Demographic/Economic Projections X 4.3.4 Forecast of Flow/Wasteloads Sys. X 4.3.5 Future Without Project X 4.4 Develop/Evaluate Alternatives X 4.4.1 Baseline X 4.4.2 Regional Solutions X 4.4.3 Alternative Waste Treatment X 4.4.4 Environmental Impacts X 4.4.5 Additional Factors X 4.5 Select Plan X 4.5.1 Selection Process X 4.5.2 Environmental Impact X 4.6 Preliminary Design X 4.7 Arrangements for Implementation X 5.0 Public Participation X 5.1 Introduction X 5,2 Relationships X 5.3 Public Hearings X 5.4 Summary Report X (1) (2) (3) Supplied by New York State Will appear as a separate report Sewer System Evaluation is not required FIGURE 1. MATRIX RELATING USEPA GUIDANCE TO HM&M MILESTONES 5. H2M CORP. • HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. However, HM&M will co-ordinate with NYSDEC, USEPA and 208 to provide engineering criteria upon which the effluent limitations may be based. HM&M will attend meetings with these agencies to evaluate the data and impact. 2.2.2 Infiltration and Inflow Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) study has already been completed on the Village of Greenport Sewer District. This report has con- cluded that the Village collection system does not have excessive infiltration/inflow. 2.2.3 Sewer System Evaluations, Sewer System Evaluations (SSE) is not required as substanti- ated by the completed Infiltration/Inflow Report and approved by NYSDEC and EPA. 2.2.4 Engineering and Environmental Data Report. This document is one of the major reporting points in the program, and constitutes approximately one-third of the work. It contains the following. 2.2.4.1 Introduction An introductory description of the planning area, stating existing or anticipated problems, sensitive area, political and economic conditions, etc., to set the background of the study. 6. H2M CORP. • HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. 2.2.4.2 Existing Conditions in the Planning Area Without the Project. This section will contain: a. A description of the planning area boundaries, politi- cal jurisdictions, land usage, and physical character- istics such as climate, soils, topography and hydrology. b. A description of the role of public organizations in planning, financing and operating publicly owned waste treatment works. C. Demographic data, based upon the most current informa- tion available at the beginning of the study. d. Water Quality. Ground and surface water quality data will be incorporated from previous studies performed by the Town, Counties, State and Federal governments. Other information, such as private research, may be incorporated as needed. Water quality sampling will be taken only to supplement and update these past studies, and to include pollutants which were previously unknown and unidentified. e. Descriptions of other significant environmental con- ditions, including sensitive habitats and species, legally protected areas, air and ambient noise quality, energy production and usage, economic and social con- ditions, etc. as they affect on, or would be affected by primary or secondary impacts. 7. • H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. Under the provisions of the National Historic Pres- ervation Act, NEPA, et. seq., an assessment of historic and archaeological factors is required. In order to minimize costs we propose the following two step procedure: 1. Conduct a review of historic records and above - surface artifacts to determine the existance of structures which meet the criteria established by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 2. Only if authorized by the SHPO and funded, we shall conduct subsurface excavations for arti- facts, and more extensive investigation of above -surface structures that would be adversly impacted by collection or treatment facilities or their secondary effects. The work will be done either by HM&M personnel or consultants acceptable to the SHPO, 2.2.4.3 Existing Wastewater Flows and Treatment Systems. A description will be prepared of the exiting Village of Greenport Sewer System. The description will include service area, collection sys- tem, treatment plants, effluent disposal, sludge disposal, flow and waste reduction measures. Data will include average and H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. peak wastewater flows, wastewater characteristics, wasteloads at key points in the system, dry and wet weather flows. In- dustrial and commercial flows will be summarized. In addition industrial dischargers to ground or surface waters will be cataloged as well as all major known point source pollution problems. 2.2.4.4 Performance of the Existing System. Analysis of present performance of the Greenport System will be made in order to determine operational efficiency. The evaluation will be made to determine the performance with best practical wastewater treatment technology (BPWTT) as a optimum performance. This will include: a. adequacy of plant design to meet current needs b. quality of operation and control C. number and qualifications of operating personnel d, adequacy of sampling and testing program e, adequacy of laboratory facilities f, quality of municipal programs 2,2.4.5 Planning Period The planning period will be twenty years beyond 1985, the year of completion of the proposed facilities. an H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. • 2.2.4.6 Land Use Demographic and Economic The majority of the task would involve the identification of reliable land use, demographic and economic estimates in the drainage basin. The projections of the Nassau -Suffolk Regional Planning Board, will be utilized as that agency must certify projections of this study to the USEPA. Estimates will be made of drainage basin saturation population based on land use . 2.2.4.7 Forecasts of Waste Loads. Waste loads forecasts will be made, based upon: a. projections of economic population growth, from Section 2.2.4.6. b. estimates of non -excessive infiltration and inflow, from the previously completed I/I Study. C. pollutant content and flows in the existing system d. analysis of pollutant content and flows during storms e, projection of future changes from industries 2.2.4.8 Future Environment of the Planning Area Without the Project. A statement will be prepared describing the "no -action" impact, based upon projections of population and land use. H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. 10 2.2.5 Alternatives and Environmental Assessment Report. This is the second major document, and is also approximately a third of the program. The work performed to achieve this report will be as follows. 2.2.5.1 Establish baseline. The baseline is the optimized performance of existing Green- port system. An estimate of performance of the system will be evaluated to determine if it can economically meet the established effluent limitations. 2.2.5.2 Selection of Alternatives. The categories of alternatives that will be evaluated for their ability to meet BPWTT are: 1. Discharge into navigable waters. a. Treatment 1. Secondary 2. Tertiary b. Disposal of effluent 1. Surface water disposal 2. Land application 3. Recharge C. Disposal of sludge 1. Regionalized incineration 2. Treatment and land application A preliminary evaluation will be conducted to eliminate the least viable alternatives. The remaining significant al- ternatives will be examined for cost-effectiveness and primary 11. H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. 0 and secondary environmental impact. Cost evaluation will be in accordance with USEPA procedures and will include capital and operation costs. These alternatives will be ranked for presentation to the public. 2.2.6 Selected Plan Report This final report document will be prepared after public hearings and evaluation of the alternatives. In conjunction with the Greenport Village Board of Trustees and the Town Board regulatory review, and public information process, HM&M will select a Final Plan that meets the requirements of BPWTT and cost-effectiveness. The final selected plan will include the following segments. a. Preliminary design criteria on the proposed collection system or systems, including those for centralized treatment systems. Smaller community systems (if applicable) for less densely developed areas of the Town. b. Preliminary process design layout, design criteria, sizing, loading rates, detention times, etc. For cen- tralized and small community treatment and disposal systems. C. Detailed costs estimates including land and easement aquisitions, engineering and legal fees, construction costs, operation and maintenance costs. 12. i H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. d. User charge schedules including estimated tax rates, debt services, projections of Federal and State aid for construction and operation, non-federal costs. e. Recommended industrial waste cost recovery program. f. Environmental assessment including impact on archaeo- logical and historic resources. g. Implementation arrangements - these will include an evaluation of institutional and legal requirements, preliminary map of the proposed sewered areas and proposed areas where small community systems should be considered. Allocation of costs will be made among various classes of uses, and financial arrangements to meet non -Federal costs. A preliminary plan of operation will be developed for management, operation and mainten- ance of the facility or facilities. 2.2.7 Public Involvement HM&M will co-ordinate all public involvement proceedings which will include working with a Citizens Advisory Committee, holding a minimum of three public meetings, and a program of speeches, mailings, newspaper articles and an active public participation program of project information. Initial efforts will concentrate on -forming a Citizens Advisory Committee. This will be accomplished by appointment by the Village Board of Trustees and the Town Board. HM&M will 13. H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. brief the committee on the work program and will periodically consult with the committee during data development and selection of alternatives A minimum of three public meetings will be held. At these meetings HM&M will deliver presentations using charts, slides, etc. All questions raised at the hearings will be answered at the time they are reaised or in writing after the conclusion of each meeting. HM&M will arrange a program of speeches, mailings, news- paper articles. HM&M reserves the right to subcontract this portion of the public information program to a public relations consultant. At the conclusion of the study HM&M will submit a report outlining the public information proceedings for the Wastewater Facility Study. 2.2.8 Deliverable Documents. HM&M will deliver seventy-five (75) copies of the following reports: a. Environmental Engineering and Data Report b. Alternatives and Environmental Assessment Report C. Final Selected Plan Report d. Summary of Public Participation. HM&M shall provide the above reports provided that proper payment has been made to HM&M and adequate funds are available 14. H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. to make such future payments in accordance with the payment conditions of this proposal. 2.2.9 Schedule HM&M proposes progress as shown on the attached schedule Figure 1. Unreasonable delays to establish effluent limita- tions, report reviews, or other reasons beyond the control of HM&M shall relieve HM&M of adhering to the schedule. This schedule assumes program start in the Fall or Winter of 1977. 2.2.10 Program Management The responsibility for program management within HM&M shall lie with Samuel C. McLendon, P.E., Executive Vice -President. Engineering shall be the responsibility of Robert H. Albanese, P.E., Vice President; and Environmental Science the responsibility of Hugo D. Freudenthal, Ph.D., Vice President. 15. WORK ELEMENT A. Environmental & Engineering Data Report B. Alternatives & Environmental Assess. Report C. Selected Plan Report D. Public Involve- ment TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY 4.6 - WORK SCHEDULE 0 6 12 18 24 MONTHS FROM AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED LEGEND: --�' WORK PERIOD .' PUBLIC HEARINGS Q REPORT SUBMISSION x 0 N 3 N a n m fi 7° O r M z 0 0 z o, CL z C s x m r r v • A • H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. SECTION 3 COST PROPOSAL 3.0 General The cost of the proposed services will be in accordance with the amounts as herein described and shall be a combination of fixed price fees and cost plus a fixed fee (CPFF). On those portions of the project for which renumeration is CPFF, HM&M shall endeavor to complete all work described in the proposal within the estimated and not -to -exceed costs. Where CPFF is designated HM&M shall notify the Village and stop work when accrued costs are equal to 90% -of the funding limitation. HM&M shall proceed to proposed completion in com- pliance with Federal regulations after adequate additional appropriations and Federal grants have been provided, or "wrap- up" and deliver under the remaining 10% only what has been pre- viously completed, at the discretion of the Village. 3.1 Cost Plus Fixed Fee For the study and preparation of the reports, HM&M shall prepare and submit the following on a Cost Plus Fixed Fee Basis. 1. Engineering and Environmental Data Report 2. Alternatives and Environmental Assessment Report 3. Selected Plan Report 4. Documentation of Public Participation 17. H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. Cost Plus Fixed Fee will be based upon: a. Hourly direct salaries b. 185 percent of hourly salaries for overhead expenses. This shall be periodically determined in accordance with USEPA procedures and audits and shall be adjusted to reflect actual overhead rates. C. Reimbursable expenses (travel, printing, applicable maps and documents, etc.). d. A fixed fee of $8,677.00. Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. shall not exceed a total cost of $95,450.00 for this portion of the study without prior approval of the Village and a grant increase by USEPA. USEPA Form 5700-41 (2/76) is also enclosed which presents our cost summary. 3.2 Payments Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. will require pro- gress payments on the basis of monthly labor and expenses, plus a fee proportional to the labor and costs expended relative to the proposed total costs, less 5 percent. The remaining 5 per- cent of the fee is due upon acceptance of the report. 1-'0ST 0:< i-itiCE SI:mMARY EORM)0 FOR SURAGREEMENTS UN' 1 U.S. EPA GRANTS instrlrc trelrl:; Lcl„r,, compictin� th, Fear 0.1113 At). I7J'-!:( !44 I —FART I-GENERAL 1. OHANTEE INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT 1. GRANT NUMBER 3. NAME OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR HOLZMACHER McLENDON & MURRELL P.C. 4, DATE OF PROPOSAL 5/20/77 . ADUI<L5 OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR (Include ZIP code) 500 Broad Hollow Road Melville, New York 11746 6. TYPE_ OF SERVICE TO 6E FURNISHED Environmental Engineering for 1120111 Facility Plan, Step I Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contract PART II-COST SUMMARY 7. DIRECT LABOR IS1— fy I.rbor r.ntey+orieB) F_STI- MATED HOURS HOURLY F2ATE $ I'STIMATED COST I _ TOT ALS SEE EXHIBIT A — DIRECT LABOR TOTAL: $ 2 -184— 8. INDIRECT COSTS (Specify md,,cct .post pools) Overhead RATE x BASE = ESTIMATED COST $ 50290_ 1.85 $ 27,184 INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL: _. OTHER Glf+f t COST; 4 cI. TRAVhL COST (I I I11AW F .>I, I Al C,1, Mileage - 6000 miles @ 154�, �) 1 N Cil LSI I e TRAVEL SUBTOTAL: m' _ 900 $ $ 900 i,. t-QUIPMI-NT, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES rSp,,cily c"tegori—) QTY COST EST IMAILO COST $ -11-000 ?00 T -- --- ------ — — _ Aerial Maps _9_$50 each 20 - — $__1,000 Suffolk County Sewer Maps lset 1 700 EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL: C. SUBCON rF(ACTS ESTIMATED COST p i — $ SUI)CONTRACTS SUBTOTAL: $ CI. OTHER (Spouly ce.reE+orirs) ESTIMATED COST Printin & Binding 800 pages @ 6 a e $ 4,800 ' G OTHER SUBTOTAL: $ 6x700 __ OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL• TOTAL ESTIMATED COST II Pf<OI IT 10,7, i $ 9, OO 5 86,'773 If 8,677 1u11',L !'RICE , I_ FA Form 57OU-41 (2-76) PAGE 1 Of 5 O N 3 EXHIBIT A A (7 COST SUMMARY LABOR BY TASKS M z r-1 U o?J Q «S Z a z a..) .H +� = $-4 ;_, C) U a r.+- r-+ a r. o m a) a) O r; r+ H a +-) z ¢Or.x aaZa)W+� +-) QUr=+� 1�4 bt P z w �-+ U r. cz x (1) •r4 (1) O x a) x r i O O Si a) rr, 01 > W +� do M M +� bA to R < r cno U) r-i ¢ V) .a d::$zU 4-1 E-4 O :z +� o M r E�walQ -��w�x Eyv� E-01 E� xrx TOTAL n E Principal Engineer/Scientist 100 192 82 26 400 $16.50 $6600. Project Engineer/Scientist 168 195 65 33 461 10.30 4748. Staff Engineer/Scientist 134 280 100 - 514 8.30 4266, Assistant Engineer/Scientist 170 210 130 30 540 6.35 3429. Engineering Aide 140 20 20 - 180 4.13 743. Design Draftsman 40 15 13 3 71 9.03 641. Draftsman 144 85 90 17 336 6.75 2268. I Jr. Draftsman 55 130 - - 185 4.25 786. Technical Typist 208 150 105 28 491 4.57 2244. Reproduction 184 75 105 25 389 3.75 1459. $27,184 LABOR BREAKDOWN INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY TASK A ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING DATA REPORT 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.5 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 EPA Intro- Exist- Exist- Perfor. Plan- Demo- GUIDANCE duc- ing Con- ing Exist. ning Land graph SECTION tion dition Flow System Period Use Proj. 4.3.4. Forecast of future load 4.3.5 Future w/o Proj. TOTAL x 0 N 0 x 3 m z a 0 d a c N -- s o p M ` .� H 0 U R S m r Principal r Engineer/Scientist 3 40 10 10 2 2 1 22 10 Project Engineer/Scientist - 80 15 20 5 3 - 40 5 168 Staff Engineer/Scientist 10 - 20 24 - - - 80 - 134 Assistant Engineer/Scientist - 100 20 - 5 10 15 20 - 170 Engineering Aide - 50 20 10 - - - 20 40 140 Design Draftsman - 40 - - - - - - - 40 Draftsman - 100 10 10 4 - - 10 10 144 Jr. Draftsman - - 20 - - 10 5 20 - 55 Technical Typist 4 100 20 20 4 5 5 40 10 208 Reproduction - 100 20 30 - 2 2 20 10 184 TOTAL 17 610 155 124 20 32 28 272 85 1343 O N Z 3 _ N LABOR BREAKDOWN i ' INC. VILLAGE OF GREENTPORT - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY 9 3 O M TASK B ALTERNATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT v M 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4 4.4.5 a EPA Alternative z GUIDANCE Regional Waste Treat. Environmen- Additional a SECTION Baseline Solutions Systems tal Impacts Factors TOTAL ; C H 0 U R S M r r Principal y Engineer/Scientist 10 15 57 100 10 192, Project Engineer/Scientist 15 20 120 20 20 195 Staff Engineer/Scientist 40 20 150 40 30 280 Assistant Engineer/Scientist 10 - - 200 - 210 Engineering Aide - - 20 - - 20 Design Draftsman - - 10 5 - 15 Draftsman - 20 40 20 5 85 Jr. Draftsman - - 20 100 10 130 Technical Typist .15 15 50 50 20 150 Reproduction 10 10 20 30 5 75 TOTAL 100 100 487 565 100 1352 INC. VILLAGE OF TASK C 4.5.2 EPA GUIDANCE Environmental SECTION Impact LABOR BREAKDOWN GREENPORT - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY SELECTED PLAN REPORT 4.6 4.7 Arrangements Preliminary. For Data Implementation TOTAL ' 0 r m z H 0 U R S 0 0 z Principal M r r A Engineer/Scientist 40 37 5 82 Project Engineer/Scientist - 60 5 65 Staff Engineer/Scientist 60 40 - 100 Assistant Engineer/Scientist 80 40 10 130 Engineering Aide - 20 - 20 Design Draftsman 8 5 - 13 Draftsman 50 40 - 90 Technical Typist 60 40 5 105 Reproduction 60 40 5 105 TOTAL 358 322 30 710 Z O r 3 D n N M ' 0 r m z i V 0 0 z d CL z C M r r A LABOR BREAKDOWN INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY TASK D PUBLIC INFORMATION REPORT EPA 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 GUIDANCE Intro- Relation- Summary SECTION duction ships Hearings Report TOTAL H 0 U R S Principal Engineer/Scientist 2 5 17 2 26 Project . Engineer/Scientist 4 5 20 4 33 Assistant Engineer/Scientist - 10 20 - 30 Design Draftsman 1 1 - 1 3 Draftsman 4 4 5 4 17 Technical Typist 5 5 8 10 28 Reproduction 5 5 5 10 25 TOTAL 21 35 75 31 162 Aft I T17(_4. I �6 U I- I "I A E, f'k I Q i L. �, I t� - - - - --------- '-.__tet is PART IV -CERTIFICATIONS 14. CONTRACTOR _14.,. HAS A 1-1 DI, HAL AUFNCY OR A FEDEPALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVIEW OF YOUR ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT OR CONTRACT WI THIN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS? [XI Y L- NO (ft "Yrs" give rwrAe address and d ielepho,,e number of rn viewing ollic u) DCAA, Garden City, NY, Telephone No. 516-741-8000 14h THIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLES 40 CFR 30-700 14, This proposal I-; -itjbiriitted for use in connection with and in response to (1) Request from Inc. Village of Greenport for Step I StJR-14TV'is to certify to the best of my knowledge and bviief that the cost and pricing, data summarized herein are complete, current, and accurate as of (2)20 Mny 1977 and that a financial management capability exists to fully and itccu- ' rijtely account forthe financial transactions Under this project. I turther certify that I understand that the subajjeemont price may be suhject to downw;ird renej;otiation ,,jid/or recoupment where the above cost and pricing data have be( -ii determined, as a result of audit; not to have been Corl)JACL', CUltreill and accurote as, of the date above. �2_0 0 12v 7� , DAT e F EXECUTION SIGNATURE OFfPROPOSER Samuel C. McLendon EX C ITTI-V PR'PSTDENT TITLE OF PR0P0$1-H 14. GRANT Et RE VIF WER I certitv that I have reviewed the cost/price summary set forth herein and the proposed costs/price appear accept,iblc for -;tjk,qoeemenl award �,All C)Ft Xk.jTION SiGNATUHt OF REVIEVNER TITLE OF REVIEWER 16. EPA REVIEWER (it DAIL OF FXLCU1ION SIGNATURE OF REVIIEWLI, TI1Lk I, t. V Iti -Lii E. PA Fumi 57�iOAI (2-76) P AG F 2 OF b H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. APPENDIX B 40 CFR 35E Appendix C-1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "Required Provisions Consulting Engineering Agreements" December 29, 1976 t FUUM RIOfiT�L 41. NO. 231-_WFDNVsDAy, DlC&MM 24, 11 A+rewsst O-1 , sxassumume ecrmxoarrs 1. General. � Hecepoelelbiltty, of the scope 4(d wagIL e. changes, A Tecminatlow G. Remedles. 7. Payment 6. Project d4s4pL 6. Audit; rocas- to isoords: 10. Price reduction far defective cost or pricing date. 11. BUboontruts. 19. labor standards I& Squat employment opporsuafty. 110 17tluestion at oro" or mirws14 btwL_ nese. 16. Covenant apiaA conttagms few I& Gratuities. 17. Patents. 18. 00plrriga10 and rights la dtta. L Gmsai (a) ?be Owner and the =aginew agree that the foilwbW provide= shall apply to the EPA piae-MigitW work 10 be, perform" under thle agreesaent sad that scab pro.. ♦161008 eha11 supersede any oonglacinp pro- vlaioas of this agreement, (b) The woyk under t tthe rgreimeat la, funded in part by a grant from the U.S. Ru- vironurental Protection Agency. Neither the Uaiwd urates Ops the IIA. Hnvlroanwas" Vmtectron AgVW7 (hereinafter- -EPA`) is a party to this agrseulent. Talo agreement vw4k-4 oovrsa 9rant-614gl6te work to sub)*" to reguWAoos Coatalas(d in 60 CPIs 86.6$8` 33J.W. and 864$0 In sill" on the date of execution of this apMment. As used IA tbw eLoassW the ceras "the date at exeauts m ct tb,s agreement- saw the dao of esdattUsse of was apwmomm and nay OLWANgyeol modIAMUon of the terms. oompensatiapp or scope Q ewvwm perLineat to Uspolarn" (o) The rights sad remedies of the owner provided for in t:Aase cisussa are in addition to any other rights Lad remedies provided by law or tinder tbls agreement. a. Rx@r0& e=arn os vas Exeari W (a) The Engineer ahall be responsible 1W the professional quality, technical accuracy. ti—ely completion. and the coordination at ail deal no. drswingt, speotacatlons, reports and ocher services furnished by the Engineer under thu agreement. The Enginser shall. without addiuomal compensation, correct or revlae any error's, omiasIons or other deficlen Clea is tia designs, drawings, SPOCLAcations. report+ and other services. (b) The Engine @Hall perform such pro- farlonai services as may be necessary to so- compUsk the work required -W be performed under this agrsement, in 4Coor400M with t1Ls agreement apd applicable EPA requite- Mena in elect on the date 010 arecutim d Ulm agresmans. (c) Approval by the bwnar or EPA of, drawings. designs, apeatfleationb reports. and Incidental engineering work or materials far- nLhed hereunder @hall not in any way rs- lieve the Engineer of responelbliity for the technical adequacy of his wcrlt. Neither the OwnWa nor XPA's review. approval or ase ospts.noe 01, nor payment for, any of the surv- loes aha11 be construed to operate ass. waiver o1 any rights under this agreement or of any cruse of action ►rising out of the perform_ an" of this agreement. (d) The ingmesr aball be and remain 11 - able In accordance with applicable law for. all damages to the Owsae or EPL caused * the ltnginwl@ neg"gont performance of mcg+ at the services furulabod under tbU agree - t; Qospt for errors, omlydotle or other dso&WACIM to the "Wat attributable to the Owner. Owner-furnishad data or any third. party. The Engineer shall not be responsible W any time delays In the project caused by ciroumstancw beyond the Engineer's obntro)- When new or advanoed processes, metyods or technology (see 40 CPA $0468) are rsrmnl+ mended by tee Engtnaw and an utilioetl, the Engineslr shall be liable only for gross-negli- Pam to the extant of such Uuwoe(gw S. Soars ars Won= Thr services to be rendered by the iaglaasr shall include W services required to cots - plate the teak or Step In accordaace wit& ap, pucable EPA rsgulatlotls (100 CPR Part 3C Subpart E in effect as the date of sseoutlon of this speemens) W the argent of the scpe of work as defied and set wit in the eagl- neaing servhces agreement to wbi4b lbw provistont ars attacbed. 4. C>Vleelw (&)TheOwner may. at nay timer 41 writ. ten order, snake changes within tba gtnaeet scope of this agreement In the servipp o! tyorl[ to be performed. U such changer cause an increase or decrease In the taglnow's cast of, or time requftW for. performance orf any arrvloee under this agreement, whether or riot changed by nay order, an sgtaLUAW adjustment shall be Made and Lala agrss. want sbali be modified In wrlaW aocordw ingly, Any claim of the Engiaasr for adJUD6% meat under Ibis clause must be asserted M writing within 80 days tram the data ot nes, _osipt• by the Engineer of the nott04aticp a, change nnlew tale Owner grants a fprthek period d time before the date atrud VW 1241110 Under tbld apss®rat Jb) 810 dwriose Ler which on oddttlouN esaspoloolh s will be d LM"d til *M Rmgt- aow shall be furai@ded without the writ$= OARIbartslion of the Owner. (o) am the event that them it a modttlaa- Son of $pA MgUIZImentr Nhating eo tae services to be performed leader this ag ee- smat subsequent W the data at wxasutlon at We agreement, the lacrstosd or decreased cart of performance at the services provided for In Lbie e61sement shall be reflected In an apprppriaq modlAostim of ttW agreement. L 71s,ax,rsosr (a) Shu agreement may less tss'12laated In .whole or In part In writing by etcher party fn tea -Nat of substanttiISy1 failure by the other party W tulDll Its ..obttptiomr wader this ts�ssoisat through no fatlltaf the twmtnat- Ihg party: Provided, That no such tormfaa- ttca may be elected unless the otber party Is given (1) act Use blah ten (10) calendar .4W tsrittaa nouoe (deliver by owttAed mail, return receipt rpliert XI) df Intent W terminsto and (2) an opportunity for ccn- rultwtion with the terminating party prior to torminotlan. (b) This agreement may be termlaated In whole or in part 1n writing by the Owner 1a its oonvenienoe: Provided, Tbat such termination is for good cause (such as for legal or Ananotal reasons. mayor changes Ia tae work or program requirements, initiation of a new Step) and that the Engineer Is given (1) not lase than ten (10) Calendar days written notice (delivered by Certified stall. return receipt requested) of intent to terml- nate and (2),an opportunity for consulta- tion with the terminating party prior to termination. (o) If termination for default is ofected by the Owner, an equitable adjustment in the price provided for in We agement -ball be made, but (1) no amount shall be allowed for anticipated profit on unperformed @erv- low or other work, and (2) any payment due to tae Engineer act the time of tarminaum may be adjusted to the artaut of any addl- Uonaf costs occasioned to the Owner by roa- sun of the inginaarV default. If termination for default Is efeoted by the lmgineer, or if terminaLon for oonventence is effected by Um Owner, the equitable adjustment shall include a reasonable pn1At for esrrioes or other wort performed. The equitable adjust- ment for any 10ermfnation shall provide for payment to the laglnew for eerelaa ren- dered and expense- Incurred prior to the termination, in addition to 4ormulatfon ast- tiement costa reasonably Incurred by the lm- girew relating to commltmantf wMah had become firm prior to the terminatloeL (d) Upon receipt of a tsrink"tton action pursuant to paragraphs (a) or (b) above, the lhlginser shall (1) promptly discontinue all services afeoted (unless the scone dlnate otherwise). and (2) deliver or otherwise maks available W the Owner W data, dravAnga, specillcatione, reports, estimates, summaries. sad such other Information and nnatariais as may have ossa accumulated by tae Sngineer Ia porforc u+g this agreementwhether com- pleted or in process. (a) Upon terminatidn pursuant to para- graphs (a) or (b) above, the Owner may take over the work and prosecute the same W oompletioa by agreement with anotaw or otherwise. Any work takenover by thy e Owner for completion will be oozOlsted at the Owner's rfa1S, and the Owner will hold harmless the Eagtuw from all claim@ and damages arldng out of lalprapsr use of abe Engineer's work. (f) u.. after termination for failure of the Eaginear to form oontuaotual obtleatkas. It he determined that the Naginser had not so railed. Ube termination scall be doomed W bave been effeoted for lbs omvenience of the Owner. Lo ouch event, adjustment of the price provided for to %tesla agreement ahall be made as provided In pang:*ph (o) cc this elause. 2boep't Y my be otherwise provided In ULU agreement, all claims, oounter-oWnw. disputes and other matters in question be- tween the Owner and the loaginow arising out of or relating to this agreement or the beach thereof will be decided by arbitration If the parpea hereto mutually agree, or in a court of competent jurisdiction witam the Stats in whtcm the owner to located. 7. PAvaores �, wit(h) paayimtennt schadbe w.ainoorpora In In this agreement as soon as praou"blp upon submission of statements requesting pay- ment by the inglnser W the Owner. If no such payment schedule 4 incorporated In this agreement. the payment provisions of paragraph (b) of this clause eha11 apply. (b) Monthly progress payments may be m - quested by the Znglneer and ahsll be mads by the Owner W the snglnow ao soon as prac- ticable upon submission of statements re- questing payment by the &ngioeer to the Owner. When such progress payments are made, the Owner may withhold up b ten percent of the vouchered amount until set.- isfactory completion by the Saginaw of work and services within a Stop oaWed for under this agreement. When the Owner determum that the work. under this agreement at any specified task hereunder is qubstautiaily complete and that the amount of retained peroenteges is in excess of VW smount can- sidwv4 by hlm to be adequate for lbs pro- teotion of the Owner, he shall release to the Jw4aueer such exoeees amount (o) No payment request curds pursuant to paragteph (a) or (b) of this clause shall &90904 the estimated amount and value of the wort and services performed by the En- gineer under this agreement. which MU - me Lee ahall be prepared by the iagineer and supplemented or a000mp&nled by in -ah sup- porting data b MAY be required by the Owner. (d) Upon satisfactory completion of the wort performed hereunder, and prior to,final payment under this agreement Lor such work, or prior' setUemeUt upon terminAtdoa of the Agreement, and as a oondttion peeo- edent thereto, the Engineer shall exemia ,and deliver to the Owner a r&tease of all olaims against the Owner wlalyig under or by virtue of this agreement. other than strap claims. if any, es may be specifically ex- empted by the iogineer from the operation of the raise" In mtgted amounts to be set forth therein. S. Pzo.nar Drssax (A) In the performance of this agreement, tits Mngibser shall. to taps extent practicable. provide for maximum use of &tMiatures, rmA- shines, products, materials, oonaWouon methods, and equipment which ars readily available through oompoUtive procurement. or through standard or proven production techniques, methods, and processes, consist- ent witb 40 CPR 86.986--8 and 88.986-13 In effect an the date of execution of this agree- zAent, eaoept to the extent that Wvanoed technology may be utilized pursuant to 40 C R 86.90A in effect on the date of execution of thls agreement. (b) The Eotdmeer &hall not, In the per- loemanoe of the wort palled for by this agreement, produoe a design or spocibo&d— ltsoh As to require the use of ststtatUrm saacbines„ products, materials. construction szethods, equipment, or processes which AN known by tae lk.,41, &v to be Available only C-01 • Sole MMAM, tmlesm scall was has been adequately In writtag by Sha ■agi- OW. (a) The 8bgineer anal! not, Ln She pAr- Sormanoe of the worst sallied for by Sols agreement, produce a design or epeoifioatiom which woWd be restrictive to vic"on at Ora. 206(a)(4) of the 7ttder%L Water Potiu- Mon Control AAt (PL 99-800). Thu Mute requires that ssO spoals&ation for nide or Statement of seat &hall be written An snob a manner a& to Contain proprietary, Sxclu- staoary, or discriminatory ee4tiusm&nta other than those based upon perforolAnca, UNIT such requirements are Dboameary to teat oc demonstrate a speade thing, or to provide for necessary lnterohang-blUy at parts And equipment. or at least two brand names or trade names of comparable quallty or utility are listed and ars followed by tae words -'or Squat.^ With regal W materials. If a stogie rsuterW Is speoLded. the RuCtmor roust be prepared to sub"autlato the bash tot Sae selection of the material. (d) The l9orgina er sha11 report WAh& owner any soleiouroe or Isrtelcdve-desIgn at speo- ISAstion giving tae reason or reasons why It is oocoddered asowaary to reserlot ma design or &poeiLastlon. (e) The ft" 91 "&r Shall sot laowtagly Spao- ify or Approve the parformanoo at work at A facility which is in violation of Clean Air or Water standards Aad which is listed by Uld Director of the XPA 06106 of Pederal A4tAv1- tles pursuant to 40 CPR Part 18. 9. A sort; Aooms vo Smoosw (a) The lrngiaeer ahAll m&LAtaln boob, reoorda. documents and other evlgemos di- rectly pertinent to performance on XPA grant work under thu Agreement In s000rd- anoe with generally Aoo&pted s000unting prinalpies and practices oomslstantly applied, and 40 CPS 80.608, 90.800, and 8648b-7 In sas" on the date of execution of this Ageee- i meat. The Ragineer shall also maintain the financial InfMoStAop and date used by the Roglaser in the preparation or support of the cost submission required paisuent to 40 00% 86.987-4(b) In effect on the data of execution of this agreement and a copy of the cost summary submitted to the Owner. The United States lInvitanmental protection Agency, the Comptroller Cenral at tits United States, the United atat&e Department of Labor. Owner, sad (the State water poUu- U011 control rayl or any of their duly authorized representatives shall have nooses to such books, records. documents sad other evidence for the pUr'pose of Inspection, audit and copying. The tngimer will provide peep- ar facilities for such aooeee and Inspection. (b) The CAW -ow agrees to Include pars - graphs (A) through (e) of this clause In all bhh ocntractt and all tier subcontracts di- reotly related to project performance which are in eerow 0t $10,000. (o) Audits oqr Added pursuant to this pro- vision shall be In a000rdanoe withggeenerally accepted auditing standards and as abllehed pmoedures and guidelines of the rorkwing or audit agency (us) . (d) The inginow agrees bo the disclosure of all Information and reports resulting from 000eee to reoords pursuant to paragraph& (a) and (b) above, to Lay of the Agenclas re- ferred to In paragrapha) above, provided Mat the )engineer Is afforded the opportunity for an, audit exit oonferenos end An opportu- nity to comment and submit any supporting documentation off the pertinent portions at the draft audit report and WAS tfae tsn&i audit report will include written oommeato 69 reaeoo&bie langlR, if any. of the nagfnser. +(S) Records under paragraphs (A) And (b) above shall be maintained and made a"ll- "" dorind pet'ibrnraaos on SPA grant work under this Agreemegt and until three yarns from date of flnai RPA grant payment Dor the project. In Addition, those records which res• lata be any "L*VuW appeal under An 1PA grant agreement. or litigation, or the settle.. moat 0f otaia» Arkin& out of such parforcq- eaca, ar costa Or (tams to wslah An audit emorpuca has bene taken. shall, be marry tamed and made available until thaw yeas after the nate of resolution o[ socb "appeal. litigatiar6 ciWat or exception. I& ftwa RMUCrnox roa Dlvu.-rtae Cor at PsS=G Des& (rhes clause Is oprlfoobie It the etnownt o/ Vito agreement szoseda 0100.066.) (a) If the Owner or XPA dolormrnas that Any Wire. 1130JUding profit, negotiated In connection with this egreamens or any coat »Imbureablo under this egreeadent was in - crossed by any significant sums because the lbnginesr or any subcontractor furnished ta- complete or In&ocutate oast or pricing date, or data bat ataTmA as osrtlfied in hie osrud- MUM of current east of pricing data (W* Pbe 67011 -fl), than such priao or ooss a pro& a" be twits aCoardlttgly and the agreement shall be modiOsd to writing to so - Meet each reductwsa (b) Failure to agree on a rsducttoA ah -n be subject bo We Remedies chute of tLjs A (NOTt--Mftoe the agreement to subfact to reduction wader this clause by reneon of ds- fectiw oast or pricing date submitted to con- neeftow with certadn suboontracU, the L'npi- weer may wtah to include a claua0 tit each swoh tuboontract requiring the subcontractor to appropriately indemnify the L'agtassr. ft is also aspected that any subcontractor sub- foct to such indemni toatton -W generally require subotanttafly similer titdernni)Icattow faede/oattoe cod or pricing data required to be submitted by h4 lover tie awboontrec- tarsa • 1L ounconwasts* (a) Any subcontractors and outslds asso- edatas or consultants required by, the Mogf- row In connection with the srvloas oovsred by this agrgooment will be Umrted to Sucs tndivktueJe or firms w war& mpeclfially Identified and agreed to during nagousuoor, or as ane rr IfIally Authorized by the Owner during the performance of this agreement. Any substitution@ In Or additions to moos sub000tractoM sonocdates, or consultanle will be subject to the prise approval 0l Ica Owner. (b) The zngtoeer may not sabeontaat Servtar in excess of thirty percent (os ------ peQovem If the Owner and the shgUlow hereby sgrw) of Me contract prtoe to sub- contractors or consultants wttbout pries written approval, air the Owner- lz Lezoa DrampAsaw To the extant that this agreement Involves '000struotion" (as Aafined by the Ssgatar7 of Labor). the Wngineer agrees that such %matrucuon weilt aball be subject to the fol- lowing labor Standards prpvLi000� to the extent a{ i,lic able: (Al Dave-Bitooa Act (40 II1S Q 7/ea-?les- 7): (b) Ouatract Va Hours and Batsty bu dards Acs (40 UA.C. 377-888); (o) Copeland And -1 okbaoe Aeb (1dVALC. 074); and (d) )ffiocutIve order 11M (jrqual likmaloy- msnt Opl-nunity): and Implementlag ruler, regulations, Aad relevant (rdara cc the aeatwtary of labor or II;UA.' aaud the 2noneer further agrroom that this agreement ch -U include and be subject to the Mahar standards Provisions foe P%4 - orally Ami +- ^ -'»attvctioa Cont" MP& Plum 677&.4) to afb" At do rind a "Mmew- aram of this w4rs&raent. In AocwrCame with EPA policy as expressed In 4o (.'Pit 30.470-A the togtnow &grew that he will a" dkealaulnata -micas bay em- puayeS or applicant for emnp(oymons beauty of mora ratigdoo,, color. res cgs or national arigm- 14. Uvn.alertow o► amAts am ALMORrry Rwtwras Ln 6000rdaraos with ZPA policy as expressed In 40 CPU 66446-7. the lndtneor agrsw U -S qualified small buAttsem And minority buai- wai Sntarprlsw &bail hAve the maximum practicohie opportunity to participate In, the Psrformatyoe of EPA grant -assorts contradts Asa suboontracts. - lf). CovxaAerr Aa&mww Ootrrarornvr rims The Eaglnerr warrants that no person at Srrltag agency has beam employed or retained to soilclt or am=* this contract upon All &grsecosat Cc understanding for a commis- uoo. percentage, brokerage. rage. or oonttngent fee.exa►pting bona fide employees. Pi r breech or vioratign d this wan'anty the Owner eh -11 have the right to annul this agreement with- out 1f&bwy or in its discretion to deduct from the oontrrct prim or oonaidsration, or otherwise recover, the full amount at such commission. ylOentage, brokarseo. at con* tangent fee. IL oaarutilar (a) If it Is found, after notate and hearing, by the Owner that gmtultias (in the form of entertainment, gats, or otherwise) were otfered or given by the ffigfaser, cc any agent or representative of the Maginear, to any oMctal, employee or agent of the Owner, of the State, or of EPA with a view toward se- curing a contract or securing favorable treat~ mant with respect to the awar=4 or amend- ing. or the wsklug at Any determinations 0 wltn rasped to the performance of this agree - most. the Owner may, by writteq notice to the, hmgicesr, terminate the right of 'Me lfnginear to proceed under this agreement or may pursue such other right& and remedies provided by law or under this aipwment: Pnwid". Tbat the existence of the facts upon which the Owner mates such findings &tall be In Issue and may be reviewed m pro- csedings purnta A to the Remedies clause of We &grooment. (b) In the _rant this agreement, to termi- nated se provided In par%gtlaph (a) hereof. this Owner shall be entitled (1) to pursue the ranee remedies against the'Enginsar as it could pursue In the event of a breach of the cypatract by the Nngineer. and (9) a& a pen- alty In "Milan to any other damages to which it may be entitled by taw, to execpplary damages In an amount (se deter- mined b)r she Owner) which shall be not tear than three nor more than Can Limas the onto incurred by the mngineer In providing any such gratuities to any such oftw or ernployse. 17. PA2%x" If this agreement mvolvs research, devel- opmental, experimental, or demonstration wait and any dietmery or Invention arises or to developed In the Course of or under this agrsment. such Invention or discovery shall be subject to the reporting and tights prowl - stnna of subpart D of 40 CPR Part 90, to effect on the data of execution of this agree- mant. inchudins Appendix 9 of said Part ft rn sues coos, the R ugiaser &ball report the discovery or Invention to, IPA directly yr through the Owner, and shall otherwise oom- ply with the Ownarle responsibilities In so- cordence with gid subpart D cf e0 Chit PRA W. The ROW-~ hereby agrees &)stet the dt&i7WtMa of rtgha t0 Inventions maria under this &gream►eat &ball be in s000rdams with the Lerma and conditlota of aforaeman. ttonsd Appendix ll<. The Inginser &hall in- clude provisions appropriate to Mdectuuate the purpaeas c[ this COadiuon in all subcontracts tnvwvtmg research. development", Ciperi- mental, ter de uxistmuou wash. . • I& Oosaamaiis ales Rlairra as D v& (a) The Magner agrees gnat any plan& drawings. designs„ apecUlosuone, computer yr grains (which are substantially paid far with IPA grant funds), technical reports, operating manuals, and other wort submtttet- with a stop 1 Pheilities Plan or with • step 2 or Step 8 grant application or which area specified to bw deUvw under tpls agree- ment or which are developed or produced and paid for under this agreement fretefred to in this clause a& "subject Tate") &M sub- ject to the rights in the United States, as we forth In Subpart D of 40 Qui Part So and in Appendix 0 to 40 CPR Part 30. In effect on the date of execution of this agreement, inchu4- ing the right to use, duplicate and disclose. such Subject Date. In whole or in pert, in any tnamner for any purpose whatsoever, and he" others do so. For purposes of this &M- cle. "grantee" Y used In said Appendix d shall refer to the 'Engineer. It the material fa copyrightable. the Unglbeer may copyright such, as permitted by said Appendix C. and &Uhlocwto the rights in the Government as set forth in Appendix Q. but the Owner and the P%dend Government reserve a royalty - free. nonexclusive. and Irrevocable Iloen&e t0 reproduce, publish and use such materlali, in whole or In par, and to authorize others to do so. The'Engineer shall bwJuds provi- sions appropriate tot effectuate the purpose td this condition In all subcontracts expected to prurdum oopvrIxbt&bIo subject Data. (b) All such 9ublsot Data famished by the Knoneer pursuant to flus atrtaemeat are Instruments at bis services In respect a[ the project. It Is understood that the Xngknesr does not represent such subject Data to be sWtable for reuse on any otter prosect or for any other purpose. Any reuse by the Owner without specific written veridesuon or adap- tation by the inglneer will be at the risk ot the Owner and without L1abiUty to the Ingl- neae. Any such verification or ddapt&tioee will entitle the'Engineer to bother compen- sation at raw to be agreed upon by the Oemee; &" the Roginser. H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. APPENDIX C Resolution of the Town Board of the Town of Southold and the Board of the Inc. Village of Greenport autho- rizing Mayor Joseph L. Townsend, Jr., and Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia, to Execute a Contract with Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR A FEDERAL GRANT WITH THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION WHEREAS, the water resources of the North Fork of Long Island are unique and fragile in quantity and its quality is becoming increasingly contaminated, and WHEREAS, the Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 provide for Federal Assistance to conduct studies of the protection of the water resources, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold is vitally concerned for the protection of the quality and quantity of the groundwater resource, and WHEREAS, The Town of Southold, after thorough consideration of the various aspects of the problem and study of available data, has hereby determined that the construction of certain works, required for the treatment of sewage, generally des- cribed as 201 Facilities Plan for Wastewater Facilities in the Town of Southold, and -2 - Law 92-500 is hereby authorized including all understandings and assurances contained in said application, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Supervisor Albert Martocchia is directed and authorized as the official representative of the applicant to act in connection with the application and to provide such additional information as may be required, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that three (3) certified copies of this Resolution be prepared and sent to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York, together with the Federal application, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution take effect immediately, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that 30 percent of unfunded project costs will be paid by the Village of Greenport and 70 percent of the unfunded project cost will be paid by the Town of Southold, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Supervisor A'bert Martocchia shall be authorized to execute such application and forms as may be necessary and also to act on behalf of the Village Board to meet Federal and State requirements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Village of Greenport is designated as the lead agency in this project and is authorized to sign all applications, submit vouchers for payment to the State and Federal Government and the Town of Southold, receive payments, make disbursements, and conduct all business as may pertain to this program. ,M y CERTIFICATE OF RECVRDING OFFICER The undersigned duly qualified Town Clerk of the Town of Southold does hereby certify: That the attached Resolution is a true and correct copy of the Resolution, authorizing the filing of an Application for a Federal grant under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, as regularly adopted at a legally convened meeting of the Southold Town Board, duly held on the 21st day of June, 1977; and further that such Resolution has been fully recorded in the Town Board Minute Book in my office. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 28th day of June, 1977. ( SEAL ) v Signature of Recording fficer SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK Title of Recording Officer